Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2016 18:09:05 +0800 From: Bill Yuan <bycn82@gmail.com> To: freebsd-ipfw <freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: IPFW: more "orthogonal? state operations, push into 11? Message-ID: <CAC%2BJH2ybp_OkywZHR02=Csn9E9kh2NG=dGm=nny1VRJ954_bjg@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <a7c03f27-6f8e-081f-6814-beafc2e9db7e@rlwinm.de> References: <9229d4f7-8466-57b0-c954-117736102bd7@FreeBSD.org> <5755F0D3.9060909@FreeBSD.org> <1465278589.404683707.3wv9pnhq@frv34.fwdcdn.com> <57567F14.1040201@FreeBSD.org> <a7c03f27-6f8e-081f-6814-beafc2e9db7e@rlwinm.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
It is more and more complex here! On 8 June 2016 at 17:28, Jan Bramkamp <crest@rlwinm.de> wrote: > On 07/06/16 10:00, Andrey V. Elsukov wrote: > >> On 07.06.16 09:31, wishmaster wrote: >> >>> With the following patch you will be able create two different states, I >>>> think, and solve your task with NAT and dynamic rules: >>>> https://reviews.freebsd.org/D6674 >>>> >>> >>> Will there be the patch in the 11-RELEASE? >>> >> >> Hi, >> >> there are three patches for ipfw, that I want to commit: >> https://reviews.freebsd.org/D6420 >> https://reviews.freebsd.org/D6434 >> https://reviews.freebsd.org/D6674 >> >> But we are in code slush and there aren't any positive review yet. So, I >> guess they will be committed only after 11.0 would be branched. >> > > To bad. Those all look very useful and and together would enable me to use > my FreeBSD jail hosts for all packet filtering instead of running the > traffic through a OpenBSD bhyve guest on each jail host. > > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org mailing list > https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ipfw > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ipfw-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAC%2BJH2ybp_OkywZHR02=Csn9E9kh2NG=dGm=nny1VRJ954_bjg>