Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Wed, 14 Jan 2004 18:04:45 +0100
From:      =?iso-8859-1?Q?Sten_Daniel_S=F8rsdal?= <sten.daniel.sorsdal@wan.no>
To:        "Luigi Rizzo" <rizzo@icir.org>, <ipfw@freebsd.org>
Subject:   RE: semantics of 'not-applicable' options in ipfw ?
Message-ID:  <0AF1BBDF1218F14E9B4CCE414744E70F5D9779@exchange.wanglobal.net>

Next in thread | Raw E-Mail | Index | Archive | Help
=20
> As the subject says... what is people's opinion on the best=20
> semantics for 'not-applicable' options in ipfw rules ?
>=20
> As an example, if i say (using ipfw2 syntax, for simplicity)
>=20
> 	100 count src-port 100
> 	200 count not src-port 100
>=20

It is in my opinion that people in general interpret this=20
example to count tcp/udp packets from (src-port=3D=3D100) and
(src-port!=3D100), despite the man page.

For example;

100 count src-port 100
200 count src-port not 100

I also believe that "via" option also causes the same kind of =
confussion.

By the way, do you have any plans to implement a tag/flag system?
( example:
	100 flag 100 src-port 100
	200 allow flag 100
)



_// Sten Daniel S=F8rsdal



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <http://docs.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?0AF1BBDF1218F14E9B4CCE414744E70F5D9779>