Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2001 11:52:39 -0800 From: Don Lewis <Don.Lewis@tsc.tdk.com> To: Barney Wolff <barney@pit.databus.com>, Don Lewis <Don.Lewis@tsc.tdk.com> Cc: Chris Johnson <cjohnson@palomine.net>, stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Did ipfw fwd just break? Message-ID: <200103041952.LAA27955@salsa.gv.tsc.tdk.com> In-Reply-To: <20010304012338.A52971@pit.databus.com> References: <20010303203733.A49750@palomine.net> <200103040211.SAA24825@salsa.gv.tsc.tdk.com> <20010303211958.A50525@palomine.net> <200103040230.SAA25152@salsa.gv.tsc.tdk.com> <20010304012338.A52971@pit.databus.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mar 4, 1:23am, Barney Wolff wrote: } Subject: Re: Did ipfw fwd just break? } I question whether this complexity is necessary. The effect of the } tranparent proxying could just as well have been achieved by } translating to an alias address that is assigned to the interface, } rather than to localhost, right? Simpler is better, in the kernel. Correct, but most of this patch fixes other breakage. Restoring ipfw fwd to its former functionality just required adding one term to the expression used to set the checkif variable. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200103041952.LAA27955>