From owner-freebsd-net Tue Oct 24 14:31:41 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from ICSI.Berkeley.EDU (fruitcake.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU [192.150.186.11]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B184437B4C5 for ; Tue, 24 Oct 2000 14:31:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fondue.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU (fondue.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU [192.150.186.19]) by ICSI.Berkeley.EDU (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id OAA28356; Tue, 24 Oct 2000 14:31:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (rizzo@localhost) by fondue.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU (8.8.2/1.8) with ESMTP id OAA14497; Tue, 24 Oct 2000 14:31:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: fondue.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU: rizzo owned process doing -bs Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 14:31:29 -0700 (PDT) From: Luigi Rizzo To: "Julian Stacey Jhs%flip@jhs.muc.de xxyy" Cc: Mike Hoskins , Rudy , freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: '/kernel: Too many dynamic rules, sorry In-Reply-To: <200010241549.e9OFlNX17858@jhs.muc.de> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org > Summer 1999 or before, > I ran out of space for all my rules, I append my Julian, i think you are talking about a different thing. The original posting was referring to the stateful (aka dynamic) ipfw rules, which were introduced in Jan2000. The patches which someone else mentioned were related to configuring timeouts on stateful rules. Your patches just modify the increment in autonumbering ipfw rules. [and the only reason i spotted this is the "Summer 1999" ...] cheers luigi To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message