From owner-freebsd-ipfw@FreeBSD.ORG Wed May 9 09:53:26 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6B5216A400 for ; Wed, 9 May 2007 09:53:26 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from asstec@matik.com.br) Received: from msrv.matik.com.br (msrv.matik.com.br [200.152.83.14]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36C9913C43E for ; Wed, 9 May 2007 09:53:25 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from asstec@matik.com.br) Received: from ap-h.matik.com.br (ap-h.matik.com.br [200.152.83.36]) by msrv.matik.com.br (8.14.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id l499rCJN087510; Wed, 9 May 2007 06:53:13 -0300 (BRT) (envelope-from asstec@matik.com.br) From: AT Matik Organization: Infomatik To: freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 06:52:37 -0300 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.6 References: <33910a2c0705041812s2aaf0b62t785e16abc0decee6@mail.gmail.com> <463FBE30.90009@elischer.org> In-Reply-To: <463FBE30.90009@elischer.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200705090652.37906.asstec@matik.com.br> X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.2 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED, AWL, ISO_7BITS, J_CHICKENPOX_44, MR_DIFF_MID, TW_PF, USER_IN_WHITELIST autolearn=no version=3.1.8 X-Spam-Checker-Version: Antispam Datacenter Matik msrv.matik.com.br X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV version 0.88.4, clamav-milter version 0.88.4 on msrv.matik.com.br X-Virus-Status: Clean Cc: Kirk Davis , Julian Elischer Subject: Re: Policy Routing natd+ipfw 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: Wed, 09 May 2007 09:53:26 -0000 On Monday 07 May 2007 21:02:56 Julian Elischer wrote: > Kirk Davis wrote: > > Julian Elischer wrote: > >> in -current you can implement a routing table via FWD and tables. > >> in 6.x you need to specify the next hop. and an more explicit rule. > > > > Is there any information floating around on how to do this in current > > using the FWD rules and tables? Any pointer on where to look. > > man ipfw on -current > > basically you can implement alternate routing tables.. > > ipfw table 1 add 0.0.0.0/0 4.5.6.7 # default route for table 1 > ipfw table 1 add 2.3.4.0/24 5.4.3.2 # but not for packets to 2.3.4.x > ipfw table 2 add 0.0.0.0/0 7.6.5.4 #default route for table 2 > ipfw table 2 add 2.3.4.0/24 6.5.4.3 # but differnet route for packets to > 2.3.4.x > certainly this still are not routing tables but simplified forward table configurations right? what we still need is kind of route2 implementation like Linux does Joao A mensagem foi scaneada pelo sistema de e-mail e pode ser considerada segura. Service fornecido pelo Datacenter Matik https://datacenter.matik.com.br