Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Mon, 17 Jun 2002 14:47:20 -0400
From:      parv <parv@pair.com>
To:        Ceri Davies <setantae@submonkey.net>
Cc:        Darren Pilgrim <dmp@pantherdragon.org>, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: "Login for services" ipf/ipfw rule creation?
Message-ID:  <20020617184720.GB4290@moo.holy.cow>
In-Reply-To: <20020617100400.GB6360@submonkey.net>
References:  <3D0DB0DC.2A7F8E1E@pantherdragon.org> <20020617100400.GB6360@submonkey.net>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
in message <20020617100400.GB6360@submonkey.net>,
wrote Ceri Davies thusly...
>
> On Mon, Jun 17, 2002 at 02:50:20AM -0700, Darren Pilgrim wrote:
> > 
...
> > I know ipfw doesn't have the ability to flush the static and
> > dynamic rules seperately, but that ipf does.  Can I use both
> > ipfw and ipf simutaneously, or is it an either/or deal?
> 
> I'm pretty sure it's either/or.

i remember from some freebsd mailing list, not incorrectly, that at
least one person was using both ipfw & ipf actively w/o problems (or
problems had been workaround away or resolved).

personally, i can testify, based on little experience, that both
ipfw & ipf can be used simultaneously.  you see i had both ipfw &
ipf compiled in the  kernel...

options         IPFIREWALL
#options         IPFIREWALL_DEFAULT_TO_ACCEPT

options         IPFILTER
options         IPFILTER_DEFAULT_BLOCK

...but i had rules only for ipf and not for ipfw.  w/o the
IPFIREWALL_DEFAULT_TO_ACCEPT option, nothing was going out ... until
i realized the fact.  so i enabled that option and everything is
going in & out just fine.  big idea is to leisurely experiment
running both firewalls simultaneously, and as a side effect learn
ipfw too.


  - parv

-- 
 

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




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020617184720.GB4290>