From owner-freebsd-ipfw@FreeBSD.ORG  Wed Apr 30 00:14:28 2003
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-ipfw@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 283D237B401
	for <freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org>; Wed, 30 Apr 2003 00:14:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx1.lphp.org (APastourelles-107-1-5-101.abo.wanadoo.fr
	[193.252.221.101])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E83C843FBF
	for <freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org>; Wed, 30 Apr 2003 00:14:26 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from ajacoutot@lphp.org)
Received: from sta01 (sta01.lphp.org.local [192.168.0.4])
	by mx1.lphp.org (8.12.8p1/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h3U7EIRs070050;
	Wed, 30 Apr 2003 09:14:18 +0200 (CEST)
	(envelope-from ajacoutot@lphp.org)
From: Antoine Jacoutot <ajacoutot@lphp.org>
To: cjclark@alum.mit.edu, "Crist J. Clark" <crist.clark@attbi.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 09:14:18 +0200
User-Agent: KMail/1.5.1
References: <200304271259.02025.ajacoutot@lphp.org>
	<200304300100.42983.ajacoutot@lphp.org>
	<20030430045856.GA23926@blossom.cjclark.org>
In-Reply-To: <20030430045856.GA23926@blossom.cjclark.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200304300914.18382.ajacoutot@lphp.org>
cc: freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: ipfw dynamic rule timeout
X-BeenThere: freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: IPFW Technical Discussions <freebsd-ipfw.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ipfw>,
	<mailto:freebsd-ipfw-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ipfw>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-ipfw-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ipfw>,
	<mailto:freebsd-ipfw-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 07:14:28 -0000

On Wednesday 30 April 2003 06:58, Crist J. Clark wrote:
> I think several of the articles point to the easiest solution: Don't
> use keep-state rules in conjunction with natd(8). Keep-state doesn't
> offer you anything more than using natd(8) with stateless rules for
> the vast majority of policies.

Yes, thanks, that's what I though too.
I guess I'll just have to write a new "stateless" ruleset (I always used 
keep-state).
Regards.

Antoine