Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2016 11:58:16 +0800 From: Julian Elischer <julian@freebsd.org> To: "Andrey V. Elsukov" <ae@FreeBSD.org>, lev@FreeBSD.org, Ian Smith <smithi@nimnet.asn.au> Cc: freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org, "Alexander V. Chernikov" <melifaro@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: IPFW: more "orthogonal? state operations, push into 11? Message-ID: <b2580c8f-b279-a3cb-63ae-0c42667d3c35@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <a3e98e25-4c0d-56ad-5640-0b6f13ebeb21@freebsd.org> References: <9229d4f7-8466-57b0-c954-117736102bd7@FreeBSD.org> <5755F0D3.9060909@FreeBSD.org> <5759DB79.10205@FreeBSD.org> <3d09497c-136c-e217-154c-ba00e6879c6f@freebsd.org> <20160616005016.A15883@sola.nimnet.asn.au> <d7bef617-70a4-f761-7d09-9413eb720b11@freebsd.org> <64d6bdea-fa32-f16f-2fdd-abd33d54d04e@freebsd.org> <46d5cfde-c4ac-ebd0-3c13-2759037621f3@FreeBSD.org> <11a5d41b-109a-434b-e8e0-7ed2826a8cc9@FreeBSD.org> <ee745842-c33e-4e73-f84c-6eb11f283b51@FreeBSD.org> <a3e98e25-4c0d-56ad-5640-0b6f13ebeb21@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
So while thinking about states etc, it occured to me, what does THIS do on subsequent packets in the session? 10 skipto tablearg tcp from table(3) to me keep-state On 4/08/2016 11:42 AM, Julian Elischer wrote: > On 4/08/2016 3:08 AM, Andrey V. Elsukov wrote: >> On 03.08.16 22:07, Lev Serebryakov wrote: >>> On 03.08.2016 21:03, Andrey V. Elsukov wrote: >>> >>>>> 1/ ability to use keep-state without an implicit check-state. >>>>> <--- most >>>>> important for me. (store-state)? >>>>> 2/ ability to keep-state without actually doing it <---- less >>>>> important >>>>> for me. >>>> So, if there are nobody against, I plan to commit this part in a >>>> several >>>> days. >>> Which implementation? Just curious, I could live with any, really. >> This one >> https://people.freebsd.org/~ae/ipfw.diff >> >> but with separate opcodes, I have come to the opinion, that this will >> be more readable. >> > so, reading it. it appears that teh record-state saves a rule as a > target but doesn't actually perform the rule, right? > > that needs to be made more clear in the man page > > you say " Instead, the firewall creates a dynamic rule and the > search continues with the next rule." > > so it's a combination of #1 and #2 in my list. I think I originally > thought of having just #1. > > A combination is less useful for me as you need to do: > > 20 skipto 400 tcp from table(2) to me setup record-state > > 21 skipto 400 tcp from table(2) to me setup > > to make the entire session do the same thing. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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?b2580c8f-b279-a3cb-63ae-0c42667d3c35>