From owner-freebsd-current Mon Mar 25 06:32:15 1996 Return-Path: owner-current Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id GAA28547 for current-outgoing; Mon, 25 Mar 1996 06:32:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from time.cdrom.com (time.cdrom.com [204.216.27.226]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with ESMTP id GAA28542 for ; Mon, 25 Mar 1996 06:32:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by time.cdrom.com (8.7.5/8.6.9) with SMTP id GAA26915; Mon, 25 Mar 1996 06:31:16 -0800 (PST) To: Jian-Da Li cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: 2.2-960323-SNAP: ipfw problem In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 25 Mar 1996 21:32:13 +0800." <199603251332.VAA00749@FreeBSD.csie.NCTU.edu.tw> Date: Mon, 25 Mar 1996 06:31:16 -0800 Message-ID: <26913.827764276@time.cdrom.com> From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" Sender: owner-current@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk This is entirely correct, and has been discussed here for weeks. The idea now is that ipfw blocks all by default and you have to add rules to make it accept things. I'm sure there's a single wildcard rule you can add to get your network working again, or simply turn ipfw off if you're not using it! Jordan > > Hi : > > I just upgraded to 960323 from 960212, and my network was dead. > After try&error for 2 hours, I found that if I add IPFW-related > functions into kernel, my network will die even localhost. > The problem is, my ipfw list is empty, it should not block any > host. > It's ok since I don't really use ipfw, but please check it. :) > Thanks. > > -- > > 李 建 達 (Jian-Da Li) 交大資工 > E-Mail : jdli@csie.nctu.edu.tw