Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Thu, 9 Jan 2003 08:30:24 -0600 (CST)
From:      Shawn Barnhart <swb@accord.grasslake.net>
To:        freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: Feature Request
Message-ID:  <Pine.BSF.4.21.0301090806420.60469-100000@accord.grasslake.net>
In-Reply-To: <3E1CDC96.24785.27A7458@localhost>

Next in thread | Previous in thread | Raw E-Mail | Index | Archive | Help
On Thu, 9 Jan 2003, Bruno Afonso wrote:

> On 8 Jan 2003 at 19:00, Scott M. Nolde wrote:
> 
> > I understand that rules can be added and removed, but in most cases, once
> > the ruleset is "stable" nothing much changes.  Having a relative skip
> > would help me since I have written a number of ipfw-based firewall scripts
> > which could benefit from a relative skip.
> 
> If you happen to need to make some quick changes, you will not see it that way. You will 
> have to re-read the entire ruleset, calculate the skips, etc. imho, this feature would used 
> by 1% of users. 
> 
> I honestly can't think of any big advantages in the long run at all.

I'd wager the original poster wants to jump to a specific rule and not just
arbitrarily +5 or something.

Would a better idea be having the ability to assign a label to a specific
rule?  That way you could jump to the label and not just N rules.  This way
you could change the ruleset and not fubar the skips.

-- 
swb@grasslake.net
Hard work often pays off after time, but laziness always pays off now. 



To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-ipfw" in the body of the message




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <http://docs.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.21.0301090806420.60469-100000>