Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 17:23:15 +0200 From: Andre Oppermann <andre@freebsd.org> To: current@freebsd.org Cc: Dag-Erling Sm?rgrav <des@des.no> Subject: Re: Heads up: You may need recompile of ipfw(8) Message-ID: <408934E3.1010901@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <20040423151442.GB49454@dragon.nuxi.com> References: <408929D7.1030406@freebsd.org> <xzpad12n4fx.fsf@dwp.des.no> <40892BDB.9030500@freebsd.org> <20040423151442.GB49454@dragon.nuxi.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
David O'Brien wrote: > On Fri, Apr 23, 2004 at 04:44:43PM +0200, Andre Oppermann wrote: > >>Dag-Erling Sm?rgrav wrote: >> >>>Andre Oppermann <andre@freebsd.org> 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? This option is not for joe-user or joe-server-admin but for a couple of dozen people using FreeBSD as router with BGP. I trust them to be able to cope with this burden of spelling hardship. ;-) If it were an option for the general public I would have chosen something less complicated. -- Andre
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?408934E3.1010901>