Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Fri, 3 May 2002 22:38:12 -0700
From:      Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@icir.org>
To:        Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org>
Cc:        Ben Jackson <ben@ben.com>, freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject:   Re: ip_output: why IPSEC before IPF/IPFW?
Message-ID:  <20020503223812.C26854@iguana.icir.org>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0205032207040.85737-100000@InterJet.elischer.org>
References:  <20020504031703.GA2184@pulsar.home.ben.com> <Pine.BSF.4.21.0205032207040.85737-100000@InterJet.elischer.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, May 03, 2002 at 10:10:56PM -0700, Julian Elischer wrote:
...
> Thanks for bringing this up..
> I'm actually flabberghasted that it's so. I've been assuming it was the
> other way around.
> The advantage of having it the other way would be to be able to do other
> evil
> things to ipsec packets, but as it is you can totally block
> all packets and ipsec will still work..
> but that's certainly not POLA.. because we tell teh world that
> the ipfw works on ALL packets.

except when we use ipfastforwarding, which is also anything but POLA...

	cheers
	luigi

To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020503223812.C26854>