Date: Mon, 02 Jan 2006 00:14:40 +0100 From: =?ISO-8859-2?Q?=A3ukasz_Bromirski?= <lbromirski@mr0vka.eu.org> To: freebsd-pf@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [feature] ipfw verrevpath/versrcreach? Message-ID: <43B86260.3070209@mr0vka.eu.org> In-Reply-To: <20060101193909.GK826@bashibuzuk.net> References: <20051227084823.28384.qmail@web32611.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20051227122546.GE81@insomnia.benzedrine.cx> <43B5C7E1.8060400@mr0vka.eu.org> <20060101175800.GP42629@FreeBSD.org> <20060101193909.GK826@bashibuzuk.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Yann Berthier wrote: > Is there reasons to not implement conditionaly these checks (the > strict and the loose mode) in the stack itself, in the same vein than > say ithe blackhole or the drop_synfin checks ? Just curious - but > uRPF filtering can be very handy, and i don't need full-fledged > filtering on every machine. Yes, after some work on the pf sources I realized that doing the uRPF work in ip_input.c and controlling it for example via sysctl of some kind would be cleaner - no dependency on packet filtering of any kind and functionality done once not splattered over few places. But I asked because my lack of time and experience in coding *BSD. I'm slowly moving on, but if someone has 15 minutes of his precious time free and can code it with closed eyes, surely we'd be grateful. -- this space was intentionally left blank | Łukasz Bromirski you can insert your favourite quote here | lukasz:bromirski,net
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?43B86260.3070209>