From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Apr 23 08:14:48 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06A9616A4CE; Fri, 23 Apr 2004 08:14:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from TRANG.nuxi.com (trang.nuxi.com [66.93.134.19]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4A8843D5C; Fri, 23 Apr 2004 08:14:47 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from obrien@NUXI.com) Received: from dragon.nuxi.com (obrien@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by TRANG.nuxi.com (8.12.11/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i3NFEgfQ049530; Fri, 23 Apr 2004 08:14:42 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from obrien@dragon.nuxi.com) Received: (from obrien@localhost) by dragon.nuxi.com (8.12.11/8.12.11/Submit) id i3NFEgjR049529; Fri, 23 Apr 2004 08:14:42 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from obrien) Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 08:14:42 -0700 From: "David O'Brien" To: Andre Oppermann Message-ID: <20040423151442.GB49454@dragon.nuxi.com> Mail-Followup-To: David O'Brien , Andre Oppermann , Dag-Erling Sm?rgrav , current@freebsd.org References: <408929D7.1030406@freebsd.org> <40892BDB.9030500@freebsd.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <40892BDB.9030500@freebsd.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-Operating-System: FreeBSD 5.2-CURRENT Organization: The NUXI BSD Group X-Pgp-Rsa-Fingerprint: B7 4D 3E E9 11 39 5F A3 90 76 5D 69 58 D9 98 7A X-Pgp-Rsa-Keyid: 1024/34F9F9D5 cc: Dag-Erling Sm?rgrav cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Heads up: You may need recompile of ipfw(8) X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: current@freebsd.org List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 15:14:48 -0000 On Fri, Apr 23, 2004 at 04:44:43PM +0200, Andre Oppermann wrote: > Dag-Erling Sm?rgrav wrote: > >Andre Oppermann writes: > > > >> Due to a new option in ipfw (versrcreach) the ipfw(8) command > >> needs to be recompiled. Normal accept/reject rules without > >> options are not affected but those with options may break until > >> ipfw(8) is recompiled. > > > > > >any chance of renaming this to something less tongue-twisting, like > >maybe "reachable"? > > I wanted it to stay in line with the other option "verrevpath" and the > Cisco equivalent: > > ipfw add 1000 deny ip from any to any not versrcreach How about adding an alias of something easily spellable then? -- -- David (obrien@FreeBSD.org)