Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 10 Sep 2002 22:30:29 -0700
From:      Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@icir.org>
To:        "Daniel C. Sobral" <dcs@tcoip.com.br>
Cc:        ipfw@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject:   Re: ipfw2 vs. ipfw1 and 4.7
Message-ID:  <20020910223029.D84624@iguana.icir.org>
In-Reply-To: <3D7E3FDE.6070805@tcoip.com.br>; from dcs@tcoip.com.br on Tue, Sep 10, 2002 at 03:54:22PM -0300
References:  <20020902082743.D87097@iguana.icir.org> <3D7E3FDE.6070805@tcoip.com.br>

Next in thread | Previous in thread | Raw E-Mail | Index | Archive | Help
On Tue, Sep 10, 2002 at 03:54:22PM -0300, Daniel C. Sobral wrote:
> Luigi Rizzo wrote:
> > People,
> > now that the release of 4.7 is approaching, i would really appreciate
> > if you could give ipfw2 a try and see whether it breaks anything
> > in your rulesets. Also have a look at the manpage highlighting the
> > differences between ipfw1 and ipfw2 to see if your rulesets can be
> > simplified/made more efficient.
> 
> I love ipfw2, even though the breakage of fwd caused me a huge headache. 

which reminds me, i have to fix the byte order in port numbers in
fwd actions...

> As a side note, the man page mentions that 32 sets are available, but 
> set 31 is illegal when I try to use it (and sometimes produce very weird 
> results indeed).

i guess i have to clarify the wording -- the manpage says

             Each rule is associated to a set_number in the range 0..31, with
             the latter reserved for the default rule.  Sets can be individu-

with wich i meant to say that you cannot use set 31 for anything else,
nor disable it.

What "weird results" were you seeing ?

	cheers
	luigi

To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-ipfw" in the body of the message




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <http://docs.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020910223029.D84624>