From owner-freebsd-ipfw@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Feb 28 20:50:11 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ipfw@hub.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B51D106566B for ; Tue, 28 Feb 2012 20:50:11 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::28]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7125E8FC17 for ; Tue, 28 Feb 2012 20:50:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q1SKoBfk011648 for ; Tue, 28 Feb 2012 20:50:11 GMT (envelope-from gnats@freefall.freebsd.org) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.5/8.14.5/Submit) id q1SKoBS9011647; Tue, 28 Feb 2012 20:50:11 GMT (envelope-from gnats) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 20:50:11 GMT Message-Id: <201202282050.q1SKoBS9011647@freefall.freebsd.org> To: freebsd-ipfw@FreeBSD.org From: Greg Radzykewycz Cc: Subject: Re: kern/163873: [ipfw] ipfw fwd does not work with ' via interface' in rule body X-BeenThere: freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: Greg Radzykewycz List-Id: IPFW Technical Discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 20:50:11 -0000 The following reply was made to PR kern/163873; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Greg Radzykewycz To: Sergey Matveychuk Cc: bug-followup@freebsd.org, fbsdpr@inlandnet.com Subject: Re: kern/163873: [ipfw] ipfw fwd does not work with 'via interface' in rule body Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 12:15:25 -0800 On Monday 27 February 2012 04:58:41 Sergey Matveychuk wrote: > It should be fixed in 9.0 and 8.3 (8-stable). Could you test on one of them? > > Installed 9.0 on a different test box, tested it and it worked fine. To make sure it wasn't a difference with the box, I installed 8.2 and it also worked fine with or without 'via interface' in the ipfw rule. Darn! Perhaps this is related to the ethernet device (fxp on this test box versus em on the other) or the CPU (667 MHz P-III versus 1.6 Ghz Intel Atom E6xx series). Unfortunately I can not take the other box out of service and I don't have another one currently to test with. And I don't know when I will be able to acquire another box from this vendor to investigate any further. Might as well close out this bug report as it does not appear to be a generalized problem and may be hardware or vendor specific. -- Warmest Regards Greg Radzykewycz Manager of Information Systems Inland Cellular / Inland Networks Phone: (509) 229-3190