From owner-freebsd-pf@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Sep 8 17:00:09 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-pf@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-pf@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9132E16A4DF for ; Fri, 8 Sep 2006 17:00:09 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from max@love2party.net) Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de (moutng.kundenserver.de [212.227.126.177]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CAA3743D58 for ; Fri, 8 Sep 2006 17:00:07 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from max@love2party.net) Received: from [88.64.183.15] (helo=amd64.laiers.local) by mrelayeu.kundenserver.de (node=mrelayeu6) with ESMTP (Nemesis), id 0ML29c-1GLji13tC6-0008S5; Fri, 08 Sep 2006 19:00:06 +0200 From: Max Laier Organization: FreeBSD To: freebsd-pf@freebsd.org Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2006 18:59:59 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.3 References: In-Reply-To: X-Face: ,,8R(x[kmU]tKN@>gtH1yQE4aslGdu+2]; R]*pL,U>^H?)gW@49@wdJ`H<=?utf-8?q?=25=7D*=5FBD=0A=09U=5For=3D=5CmOZf764=26nYj=3DJYbR1PW0ud?=>|!~,,CPC.1-D$FG@0h3#'5"k{V]a~.<=?utf-8?q?mZ=7D44=23Se=7Em=0A=09Fe=7E=5C=5DX5B=5D=5Fxj?=(ykz9QKMw_l0C2AQ]}Ym8)fU MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart6782219.Lfiik0g3gK"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200609081900.04884.max@love2party.net> X-Provags-ID: kundenserver.de abuse@kundenserver.de login:61c499deaeeba3ba5be80f48ecc83056 Subject: Re: TRansparent firewalll (pf vs ipfw) X-BeenThere: freebsd-pf@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Technical discussion and general questions about packet filter \(pf\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2006 17:00:09 -0000 --nextPart6782219.Lfiik0g3gK Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On Friday 08 September 2006 16:56, Mircea Popescu wrote: > I have an Freebsd 6.0 box with a functioning bridge (bridge0 =3D fxp0 + > rl0) > > My problem is that if I try to cut access to any port on bridge0 > interface using PF, nothing happens. > > For example I've tried to cut access to ssh service from a certain ip > ... putty still managed to get through. > > The rule was: > block on bridge0 proto { tcp udp } from yy.yy.yy.yy to xx.xx.xx.xx port > pppppp > > BUT, with the following rule: > block on rl0 proto { tcp udp } from yy.yy.yy.yy to xx.xx.xx.xx. port > pppppp > > Putty couldn't obtain a connection. I suggest that you read the if_bridge(4) manual page, which talks=20 extensively about packet filtering options. > Considering the fact that in linux, which I gave up using, making a > bridge would disable the interfaces within, I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE SOME > QUESTIONS ANSWERED: > > 1. Once the bridge0 interface is created, the fxp0 and rl0 interfaces > could still get their own ip addresses? (in linux this would be > imposible) You can either assign an IP to the interface or to the bridge itself,=20 iirc. > 2. Which firewall it is more desirable to use with a bridge? PF or > IPFW) The one you understand best and like the most. =2D-=20 /"\ Best regards, | mlaier@freebsd.org \ / Max Laier | ICQ #67774661 X http://pf4freebsd.love2party.net/ | mlaier@EFnet / \ ASCII Ribbon Campaign | Against HTML Mail and News --nextPart6782219.Lfiik0g3gK Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQBFAaGUXyyEoT62BG0RAvbLAJ4lgSgeyDqS7/S6Mk5sPcokpcUvUgCZAS00 tq7UyZkc3mlTAeyUlX8AuKE= =wbFC -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart6782219.Lfiik0g3gK--