From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Thu May 29 14:11:24 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 65B6A8FA for ; Thu, 29 May 2014 14:11:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from onelab2.iet.unipi.it (onelab2.iet.unipi.it [131.114.59.238]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 260B02E6C for ; Thu, 29 May 2014 14:11:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: by onelab2.iet.unipi.it (Postfix, from userid 275) id BEA407300A; Thu, 29 May 2014 16:15:59 +0200 (CEST) Date: Thu, 29 May 2014 16:15:59 +0200 From: 'Luigi Rizzo' To: bycn82 Subject: Re: propose a new generic purpose rule option for ipfw Message-ID: <20140529141559.GC74344@onelab2.iet.unipi.it> References: <001b01cf7b3b$dfd1cfb0$9f756f10$@gmail.com> <20140529131015.GA72798@onelab2.iet.unipi.it> <003201cf7b44$bfd6ed40$3f84c7c0$@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <003201cf7b44$bfd6ed40$3f84c7c0$@gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Cc: 'FreeBSD Net' X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 29 May 2014 14:11:24 -0000 On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 09:48:58PM +0800, bycn82 wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > From: 'Luigi Rizzo' [mailto:rizzo@iet.unipi.it] > Sent: 29 May, 2014 21:10 > To: bycn82 > Cc: 'FreeBSD Net' > Subject: Re: propose a new generic purpose rule option for ipfw > > > > On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 08:45:26PM +0800, bycn82 wrote: > > ... > > > > > > Sure, that is the reason why developers are providing more and more rule options. But the my question is do we have enough options to match all the fixed position values? > > > > we do not have an option for fixed position matching. > > > > Can I say that ???It will be useful when a user come up with a special requirement which cannot be fulfilled by any existing rule option.??? Since there are so many rule options already. So I don???t know when that special requirement will appear. L that is what you said ???useless???, I accept that . please re-read what i said below. 'mostly useless' != 'useless', and i am ok importing a clean implementation. > As i said, feel free to submit one and i will be happy to import it if the code is clean (btw i am still waiting for fixes to the other 'rate limiting' option you sent), but keep in mind that 'fixed position' is mostly useless. > > Which `rate limiting`, the `Packet per second`? > > http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=kern/189720 ok commented the remaining problems with a separate email. > More useful options would be one where you express the position as > > > > '{MAC|VLAN|IP|UDP|TCP|...|PAYLOAD}+offset' > > > > It is possible, > > match > > the can be a pattern , then that means it can match multiple value at the same time. what i wrote is a completely different thing. Never mind. cheers luigi > > > > so at least you can adapt to variant headers, or one where you can look for a pattern in the entire packet or in a portion of it. > > > cheers > > luigi > > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"