Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Wed, 8 Jan 2003 19:00:05 -0500
From:      "Scott M. Nolde" <scott@smnolde.com>
To:        Gregory Bond <gnb@itga.com.au>
Cc:        freebsd-ipfw@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject:   Re: Feature Request
Message-ID:  <20030109000005.GB15778@smnolde.com>
In-Reply-To: <200301082231.JAA17004@lightning.itga.com.au>
References:  <200301082231.JAA17004@lightning.itga.com.au>

Next in thread | Previous in thread | Raw E-Mail | Index | Archive | Help
Gregory Bond(gnb@itga.com.au)@2003.01.09 09:31:43 +0000:
> ?Has there been consideration to make a "relative skip" function
> 
> > Any comments?
> 
> Horrible idea.  Rules can be added and deleted in the gap, which silently
> changes the meaning of your firewall ruleset.  A maintenance nightmare.
> 
> And, as far as I can see, no redeeming features to compensate for the almost 
> certain foot-shooting this would allow.

I don't see it that way.  I work in process automation and in our modular
programming language we have this capability to skip a number of "blocks"
or "jump out" of the program.

I understand that rules can be added and removed, but in most cases, once
the ruleset is "stable" nothing much changes.  Having a relative skip
would help me since I have written a number of ipfw-based firewall scripts
which could benefit from a relative skip.

As you perceive it to become a maintenance nightmare, I see it as a
potential benefit.

-- 
Scott Nolde
GPG Key 0xD869AB48

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?20030109000005.GB15778>