From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Dec 13 10:29:30 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3184216A4CE; Mon, 13 Dec 2004 10:29:30 +0000 (GMT) Received: from poison2.syncrontech.com (adsl-nat.syncrontech.com [213.28.98.3]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 662A343D5E; Mon, 13 Dec 2004 10:29:28 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from ari@suutari.iki.fi) Received: from guinness.syncrontech.com (guinness.syncrontech.com [62.71.8.57])iBDATKvg074446; Mon, 13 Dec 2004 12:29:21 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from ari@suutari.iki.fi) Received: from coffee (coffee.syncrontech.com [62.71.8.37]) iBDATEoD045231; Mon, 13 Dec 2004 12:29:15 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from ari@suutari.iki.fi) Message-ID: <017001c4e0fe$99ce36c0$2508473e@sad.syncrontech.com> From: "Ari Suutari" To: "Andre Oppermann" References: <20041129100949.GA19560@bps.jodocus.org><41AAF696.6ED81FBF@freebsd.org><41AB3A74.8C05601D@freebsd.org><41AB65B2.A18534BF@freebsd.org><41B85729.40F00890@freebsd.org> <08f001c4de83$dfbb1b80$2508473e@sad.syncrontech.com> <41B98307.50D01EDB@freebsd.org> Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 12:29:07 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 cc: "Bjoern A. Zeeb" cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: (review request) ipfw and ipsec processing order foroutgoingpackets X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 10:29:30 -0000 Hi, > > All I intend to provide is a way to specify whether you want IPSEC before > or after pfil_hooks. By default it will be as it is today and work > exactly > the same. OK, this sounds like a good step. Maybe the next step could be third choice like 'both before and after' for us who are perhaps over-concerned about security ? Ari S.