Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 15:07:54 -0800 From: "Bruce A. Mah" <bmah@freebsd.org> To: Robert Watson <rwatson@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: 5.1->5.2 Message-ID: <200401152307.i0FN7spW039480@intruder.kitchenlab.org> In-Reply-To: <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1040115170208.74950B-100000@fledge.watson.org> References: <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1040115170208.74950B-100000@fledge.watson.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--==_Exmh_-91939202P Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii If memory serves me right, Robert Watson wrote: > > On Thu, 15 Jan 2004, Matt Freitag wrote: > > > Building 5.2-RELEASE from 5.1-RELEASE-p10 w/ipf+ipfw+ipfw6+dummynet, 5.1 > > Compiled fine with this setup. I need ipfilter as it's doing my source > > routing for ipv6 (multiple transits) since ip6fw doesn't support fwd. (I > > just use ip6fw for filtering, and ipf for forwarding to the correct > > interface according to source) Am I just being stupid here somehow? > > IPFILTER now relies on the PFIL_HOOKS kernel option; this is something > that is somewhat poorly documented, and we should add it to the errate I > suspect. It's in the release notes and in UPDATING...I have the feeling that if people won't read it in either of those two places, they won't read it in the errata either. :-p Enabling the options IPFILTER feature also requires enabling options PFIL_HOOKS. Bruce. --==_Exmh_-91939202P Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (FreeBSD) Comment: Exmh version 2.5+ 20020506 iD8DBQFABx1K2MoxcVugUsMRAtplAKCX6hP1FGEm904kkaXG/7OsPf0tIwCfZEkA xYuPswCGmgdsf13HRXL85Qw= =ani6 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --==_Exmh_-91939202P--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200401152307.i0FN7spW039480>