From owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Wed May 24 23:20:29 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Delivered-To: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6700516A433; Wed, 24 May 2006 23:20:29 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rizzo@icir.org) Received: from xorpc.icir.org (xorpc.icir.org [192.150.187.68]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2041D43D5D; Wed, 24 May 2006 23:20:28 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from rizzo@icir.org) Received: from xorpc.icir.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by xorpc.icir.org (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k4ONKRWT038433; Wed, 24 May 2006 16:20:27 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from rizzo@xorpc.icir.org) Received: (from rizzo@localhost) by xorpc.icir.org (8.12.11/8.12.3/Submit) id k4ONKRAk038432; Wed, 24 May 2006 16:20:27 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from rizzo) Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 16:20:27 -0700 From: Luigi Rizzo To: Andre Oppermann Message-ID: <20060524162027.A38253@xorpc.icir.org> References: <200605241309.k4OD9tex003002@repoman.freebsd.org> <44747A4C.9090800@freebsd.org> <44748DF8.000002.11682@camay.yandex.ru> <4474C17A.10604@freebsd.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <4474C17A.10604@freebsd.org>; from andre@FreeBSD.org on Wed, May 24, 2006 at 10:26:34PM +0200 Cc: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org, bu7cher@yandex.ru, oleg@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, src-committers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/netinet ip_fw.h ip_fw2.c src/sbin/ipfw ipfw.8 ipfw2.c X-BeenThere: cvs-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the entire tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 23:20:30 -0000 On Wed, May 24, 2006 at 10:26:34PM +0200, Andre Oppermann wrote: ... > I understand your rationale. OTOH I think it's a logical blunder and allows > some quite confusing rule sets. What I always liked about ipfw was the simple > and obvious logic in the statements. Over time it becomes more and more over- > loaded with more stuff and also more stuff breaking the beautiful simplicity > and clarity the original ipfw design had. ipfw rules used to read like normal > sentences and were really simple to write and understand. But then I'm just > ranting... It is probably true that most of the times, when you tag/untag a packet you also need to do further processing on the packet. However, this means that the associated action will be a 'skipto'. But in this case, if you want to implement tag/untag as an action, the syntax becomes quite confusing because you need to specify the jump target, and the action name (tag/untag) doesn't properly reflect the fact that there is an implicit skipto. Given this, i think the current implementation of tag/untag is the most natural way to do it, and not too different from the "keep-state" option (which also has some side effects, namely creates a state record for the flow and has been in use for ages now) cheers luigi