Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 14:14:41 -0500 (EST) From: Anthony Volodkin <anthonyv@brainlink.com> To: Mihail Balikov <misho@interbgc.com> Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: IPFW2 matching a list/set of interfaces Message-ID: <20041111141243.N82349@superior.local.non-standard.net> In-Reply-To: <001f01c4c7c6$7d4eba20$b2cef0d5@misho> References: <20041111025930.U82349@superior.local.non-standard.net> <001f01c4c7c6$7d4eba20$b2cef0d5@misho>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
That seems to work, thanks a lot!
-Anthony Volodkin
On Thu, 11 Nov 2004, Mihail Balikov wrote:
ipfw add allow ip from any to 192.168.100.100 { via fxp0 or via ng0 or
via xl0 }
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Anthony Volodkin" <anthonyv@brainlink.com>
> To: <freebsd-net@freebsd.org>
> Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2004 10:05 AM
> Subject: IPFW2 matching a list/set of interfaces
>
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I've been trying to implement some ipfw rules that would match several
> > interfaces using the recv/via/xmit keywords, however that seems to be
> > unsupported. So a rule like:
> >
> > ipfw add allow ip from any to 192.168.100.100 via {fxp0,ng0,xl0}
> >
> > fails with an invalid ) error. Alternatively if I use an or block, i
> > get an error about an invalid or block.
> >
> > Does anyone know whether this is actually possible/supported/supported
> > in the near future? Sure I could make a rule for each interface, but in
> my situation that would not scale well.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Anthony Volodkin
> > _______________________________________________
> > freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list
> > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net
> > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
> >
>
>
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20041111141243.N82349>