Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 20:25:07 +0400 From: "Andrey V. Elsukov" <ae@FreeBSD.org> To: Andre Oppermann <andre@freebsd.org> Cc: svn-src-head@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r242079 - in head: sbin/ipfw share/man/man4 sys/conf sys/net sys/netinet sys/netinet6 sys/netpfil/ipfw Message-ID: <508967E3.3070508@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <508960C2.6030003@freebsd.org> References: <201210250939.q9P9dF0q022970@svn.freebsd.org> <508960C2.6030003@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 25.10.2012 19:54, Andre Oppermann wrote: > I still don't agree with naming the sysctl net.pfil.forward. This > type of forwarding is a property of IPv4 and IPv6 and thus should > be put there. Pfil hooking can be on layer 2, 2-bridging, 3 and > who knows where else in the future. Forwarding works only for IPv46. > > You haven't even replied to my comment on net@. Please change the > sysctl location and name to its appropriate place. Hi Andre, There were two replies related to this subject, you did not replied to them and i thought that you became agree. So, if not, what you think about the name net.pfil.ipforward? > Also an MFC's after 2 weeks must ensure that compiling with IPFIREWALL_ > FORWARD enabled the sysctl at the same time to keep kernel configs > within 9-stable working. Yes, it will work like that. -- WBR, Andrey V. Elsukov
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?508967E3.3070508>