From owner-freebsd-net Wed Apr 3 11:15:57 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from iguana.icir.org (iguana.icir.org [192.150.187.36]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A498337B41D for ; Wed, 3 Apr 2002 11:15:52 -0800 (PST) Received: (from rizzo@localhost) by iguana.icir.org (8.11.6/8.11.3) id g33JFjA98251; Wed, 3 Apr 2002 11:15:45 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from rizzo) Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2002 11:15:45 -0800 From: Luigi Rizzo To: Christophe =?iso-8859-1?Q?Pr=E9votaux?= Cc: freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: IPFW Max Rule Discrete Number Limit Message-ID: <20020403111545.A98202@iguana.icir.org> References: <20020403205923.27d35e11.c.prevotaux@hexanet.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20020403205923.27d35e11.c.prevotaux@hexanet.fr> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23i Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Wed, Apr 03, 2002 at 08:59:23PM +0200, Christophe Prévotaux wrote: > Hi > > I have reached the 655 firewalling rules limit (with discrete values) > in ipfw and I was wondering why ipfw will not let the user select > the incremental step value in rules numbering ? also it should be > possible to renumber these rules on the fly > (though, i agree this is not this useful) you know you can assign explicit numbers to rules ? There is alot of magic you can do in userland rather than relying on the kernel to cope with all sorts of different user requirements... cheers luigi To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message