From owner-freebsd-hackers Mon Nov 20 07:38:01 1995 Return-Path: owner-hackers Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) id HAA13908 for hackers-outgoing; Mon, 20 Nov 1995 07:38:01 -0800 Received: from truman.rsoc.rockwell.com (truman.rsoc.rockwell.com [161.40.58.41]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) with ESMTP id HAA13901 for ; Mon, 20 Nov 1995 07:37:57 -0800 Received: (from walker@localhost) by truman.rsoc.rockwell.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) id JAA08970 for freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org; Mon, 20 Nov 1995 09:40:20 -0600 From: James Walker Message-Id: <199511201540.JAA08970@truman.rsoc.rockwell.com> Subject: Re: Building a gateway To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Date: Mon, 20 Nov 1995 09:40:19 -0600 (CST) In-Reply-To: <199511180843.JAA20171@uriah.heep.sax.de> from "J Wunsch" at Nov 18, 95 09:43:18 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24 ME8a] Content-Type: text Content-Length: 1044 Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org Precedence: bulk > > As Joe Greco wrote: > > > options GATEWAY used to increase certain kernel resources as well as > > enabling IP forwarding. If this is still the case - I would say that the > > sysctl method is much less preferable. > > As you said: ``It used to...'' It doesn't do it any more, David > Greenman has been incresing these sizes unconditionally to the GATEWAY > values long before. > > People should expect options GATEWAY to disappear some day. > -- > cheers, J"org > > joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de -- http://www.sax.de/~joerg/ -- NIC: JW11-RIPE > Never trust an operating system you don't have sources for. ;-) > Being tasked with building a TIS-based firewall on this OS, my concern is the ability to "remove" the ip-forwarding code _completely_ from the kernel. Though the sysctl interface is great, the ability to specify a config OPTION to include or exclude this code is a big win for me. So, this behavior is no longer possible? -- James Walker walker@truman.rsoc.rockwell.com