From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Feb 8 13:36:01 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A421C106564A; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 13:36:01 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from glebius@FreeBSD.org) Received: from cell.glebius.int.ru (glebius.int.ru [81.19.64.117]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2161C8FC0C; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 13:36:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from cell.glebius.int.ru (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cell.glebius.int.ru (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q18Da0G3023112; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 17:36:00 +0400 (MSK) (envelope-from glebius@FreeBSD.org) Received: (from glebius@localhost) by cell.glebius.int.ru (8.14.5/8.14.5/Submit) id q18DZx4R023109; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 17:35:59 +0400 (MSK) (envelope-from glebius@FreeBSD.org) X-Authentication-Warning: cell.glebius.int.ru: glebius set sender to glebius@FreeBSD.org using -f Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2012 17:35:59 +0400 From: Gleb Smirnoff To: Luigi Rizzo Message-ID: <20120208133559.GK13554@FreeBSD.org> References: <20120131110204.GA95472@onelab2.iet.unipi.it> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120131110204.GA95472@onelab2.iet.unipi.it> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Cc: Ermal Lu?i , freebsd-net , freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] multiple instances of ipfw(4) X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2012 13:36:01 -0000 On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 12:02:04PM +0100, Luigi Rizzo wrote: L> if i understand what the patch does, i think it makes sense to be L> able to hook ipfw instances to specific interfaces/sets of interfaces, L> as it permits the writing of more readable rulesets. Right now the L> workaround is start the ruleset with skipto rules matching on L> interface names, and then use some discipline in "reserving" a range L> of rule numbers to each interface. This is definitely a desired feature, but it should be implemented on level of pfil(9). However, that would still require multiple instances of ipfw(4). -- Totus tuus, Glebius.