Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 23:46:06 +0200 From: Max Laier <max@love2party.net> To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Cc: Charlie Schluting <charlie@schluting.com> Subject: Re: packet order, ipf or ipfw Message-ID: <200407282346.12412.max@love2party.net> In-Reply-To: <41081955.5090204@schluting.com> References: <41081955.5090204@schluting.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[-- Attachment #1 --] On Wednesday 28 July 2004 23:23, Charlie Schluting wrote: > Hello.. > > I'm running ipf because I like it ...but now I need to use ipfw's pipe > feature. I was thinking that I could just run both, and keep all my > rules in ipf, then in ipfw: limit bandwidth for a few vlans, then allow > all. > > It didn't work (no rate-limiting happened).. and I'm thinking that ipf > is passing the packets and bypassing ipfw? Or something.. > > So, what is the order, if I'm running ipf AND ipfw at the same time? > Will it work at all in this manner? On the output path (which is the only meaningful for bandwidth limitation) the order is: PFIL_HOOKS (== ipf / pf) before ipfw Note however, that ipfw will see translated packets! i.e. if you have any translation/NAT/redirect rules in ipf you need to account for that with your ipfw rules. Another alternative (on FreeBSD-current) would be pf+ALTQ, btw ;) -- /"\ Best regards, | mlaier@freebsd.org \ / Max Laier | ICQ #67774661 X http://pf4freebsd.love2party.net/ | mlaier@EFnet / \ ASCII Ribbon Campaign | Against HTML Mail and News [-- Attachment #2 --] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQBBCB6kXyyEoT62BG0RAjq6AJ9PUcHLf2Jw8i5KCyIezhZdPWo7pwCdFW9g 3/eQj7sJpyuwebYw7HgtXLo= =6Q3v -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200407282346.12412.max>