From owner-freebsd-ipfw@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Sep 6 13:07:24 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F9F316A41B for ; Thu, 6 Sep 2007 13:07:24 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from piso@southcross.wired.org) Received: from mail.oltrelinux.com (krisma.oltrelinux.com [194.242.226.43]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E147B13C48D for ; Thu, 6 Sep 2007 13:07:23 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from piso@southcross.wired.org) Received: from southcross.wired.org (host-84-221-89-199.cust-adsl.tiscali.it [84.221.89.199]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.oltrelinux.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30A4F11AE7A; Thu, 6 Sep 2007 14:34:06 +0200 (CEST) Received: (from piso@localhost) by southcross.wired.org (8.14.1/8.14.1/Submit) id l86CYIFh095099; Thu, 6 Sep 2007 14:34:18 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from piso) Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2007 14:34:17 +0200 From: Paolo Pisati To: "Chris Bowman (Home)" Message-ID: <20070906123417.GA95067@tin.it> References: <46DF68EE.1010905@austin.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <46DF68EE.1010905@austin.rr.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.16 (2007-06-09) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-20030616-p10 (Debian) at krisma.oltrelinux.com Cc: freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org, Chris Bowman Subject: Re: [6.x patchset] Ipfw nat and libalias modules X-BeenThere: freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IPFW Technical Discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2007 13:07:24 -0000 On Wed, Sep 05, 2007 at 09:41:50PM -0500, Chris Bowman (Home) wrote: > > I was recently testing the in kernel nat patch, which is an absolutely > wonderful addition in my opinion. I have however run into one issue, when > for example I do the following : > > ipfw nat 10 config ip 2.2.2.2 [snip] Where did you get the 6.x patch? Did you find a tarball around or you backported the code from 7.x? In the first case, that patch is old and buggy, and AFAIK the bug you encountered was due to an uninitialized conditional variable. bye, P.