From owner-freebsd-stable Mon Sep 11 16:51:20 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from jade.chc-chimes.com (jade.chc-chimes.com [216.28.46.6]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57ADA37B422 for ; Mon, 11 Sep 2000 16:51:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: by jade.chc-chimes.com (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 46ACB1C6B; Mon, 11 Sep 2000 19:51:14 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 19:51:14 -0400 From: Bill Fumerola To: mi@aldan.algebra.com Cc: stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: firewall rules for applications Message-ID: <20000911195114.Z47559@jade.chc-chimes.com> References: <20000911185759.W47559@jade.chc-chimes.com> <200009112337.TAA27194@misha.privatelabs.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0i In-Reply-To: <200009112337.TAA27194@misha.privatelabs.com>; from mi@aldan.algebra.com on Mon, Sep 11, 2000 at 07:37:21PM -0400 X-Operating-System: FreeBSD 3.3-STABLE i386 Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Mon, Sep 11, 2000 at 07:37:21PM -0400, mi@aldan.algebra.com wrote: > = It's reasonable to assume it can be done, but its only going to slow down > = ipfw even worse then it already is. > > But only if one chooses to use the new feature, right? Bhahahahahahaha. No. Once I can get in_pcblookup_hash to stop infinite looping (no details, just happened), I'll have a patch that tries to avoid that problem. -- Bill Fumerola - Network Architect, BOFH / Chimes, Inc. billf@chimesnet.com / billf@FreeBSD.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message