Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 16:06:05 -0700 From: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> To: n j <nino80@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org Subject: Re: IPFIREWALL_FORWARD Message-ID: <4BA00EDD.1010200@elischer.org> In-Reply-To: <92bcbda51003161522j2b8081a6x9978b27416c8665c@mail.gmail.com> References: <92bcbda51003100912k25facb5cxc9047105c91a4022@mail.gmail.com> <4B97E412.1050506@elischer.org> <4B981FE5.5090905@smartt.com> <4B9828B2.2010903@elischer.org> <92bcbda51003110047s717bed1bq8bb3eb787eab47f7@mail.gmail.com> <4B992EE8.30309@elischer.org> <92bcbda51003161522j2b8081a6x9978b27416c8665c@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
n j wrote: >> it's needed for the functionality. >> you need to slightly change the behaviour or the existing stack in quite a >> number of places to handle a forwarded packet. > > Sorry for catching up with the thread so late, I was without Internet > connection for the last couple of days. > > Thanks for all the replies so far, I've got just one more question: is > it correct that pf (as loadable module) has this forward (aka > route-to) functionality without needing the kernel recompile? If so, > it might be that final push for me to switch from ipfw to pf. > > Regards, I can't answer for pf.. this is the ipfw mailing list. :-) If they do have the same functionality then they will need the same changes. If they do something different (e.g. changing the packet) then they may be able to do a subset of the same thing.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4BA00EDD.1010200>