Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2016 18:58:32 +0800 From: Bill Yuan <bycn82@gmail.com> To: "Andrey V. Elsukov" <ae@freebsd.org> Cc: Ian Smith <smithi@nimnet.asn.au>, Julian Elischer <julian@freebsd.org>, freebsd-ipfw <freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org>, Lev Serebryakov <lev@freebsd.org>, "Alexander V. Chernikov" <melifaro@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: IPFW: more "orthogonal? state operations, push into 11? Message-ID: <CAC%2BJH2yu=f5hvuU67dWup7tn%2BTPjOTbUL5%2BUW9G10VeDwWS0Vw@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <5757F533.8070907@FreeBSD.org> References: <9229d4f7-8466-57b0-c954-117736102bd7@FreeBSD.org> <5755F0D3.9060909@FreeBSD.org> <20160607220136.R15883@sola.nimnet.asn.au> <5757F533.8070907@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In my opinion,
keep-state == "if this kind of packet come again, we are going to perform
the current action"
check-state == "did we met this kind of packet before? Yes! then perform
that action"
so in DragonflyBSD, below commands are implemented to manipulate the
"states"
ipfw3 state show [rulenum]
ipfw3 state add rule rulenum proto src:port dst:port [state-options]
ipfw3 state delete rulenum
On 8 June 2016 at 18:36, Andrey V. Elsukov <ae@freebsd.org> wrote:
> On 07.06.16 17:31, Ian Smith wrote:
> > If your patch does what Lev wanted to achieve with (I thought too many)
> > new dynamic rule actions, then I think your simpler solution is better,
> > not least because it's far easier to understand for non-Julians :)
> >
> > Looking from a useability and documentation perspective only - I won't
> > even be looking at this code - I have a few thoughts:
> >
> > Thus far, keep-state and limit seem to be interchangeable options; limit
> > rules will need to work the same with respect to named dynamic flows; do
> > I assume that you've just started with only keep-state for testing?
>
> We don't use limit rules at all, so it wasn't implemented. I think it
> will not so hard to implement.
>
> > I think flow names should be specified as an _optional_ parameter, thus:
> >
> > check-state [name]
> >
> > keep-state [name]
> >
> > limit {src-addr | src-port | dst-addr | dst-port} N [name]
> >
> > where name (maybe flowname, for easier comprehension by man readers?) is
> > optional, assigned as 'default' whenever omitted - as well as being for
> > backwards ruleset compatibility, which then only needs mentioning once,
> > and maybe also put another way in the STATEFUL FIREWALL section.
> >
> > So a few of the existing example rules with no name could stand, while
> > others (see below) append names of OUTBOUND and INBOUND or whatever.
> >
> > As is, you have
> >
> > 740 .It Cm check-state Op Ar name | Cm any | Cm default
> >
> > which in other contexts would mean you have to supply one of 'name' or
> > 'any' or 'default' when you don't have to provide one, 'default' being
> > assigned otherwise. Otherwise I think this is fairly well described.
> >
> > Will 'ipfw -[e]d list|show' show the flow names? or the indices?
>
> It will show the flow name at the end of line.
>
> > As I pestered Lev about last year, we still need a small example ruleset
> > section that actually deals with potentially problematic stateful issues
> > with NAT - which I still don't fully understand - beyond descriptions in
> > the abstract case; ie an actual working dual- or multi-flow example.
> >
> > I know these are "just doc" issues of little importance while testing
> > working code, and I haven't supplied any patches, so are just FWIW ..
>
> Will try to implement support for limit rules and update man. Thanks.
>
> --
> WBR, Andrey V. Elsukov
>
>
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAC%2BJH2yu=f5hvuU67dWup7tn%2BTPjOTbUL5%2BUW9G10VeDwWS0Vw>