From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jul 21 23:31:54 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A08D716A44F for ; Thu, 21 Jul 2005 23:31:54 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from jfalconer@puc.edu) Received: from ecf.puc.edu (ecf2.puc.edu [12.16.216.2]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E28BF43D9B for ; Thu, 21 Jul 2005 23:31:42 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from jfalconer@puc.edu) Received: from localhost (jfalconer@localhost) by ecf.puc.edu (8.11.6/8.10.1) with ESMTP id j6LNVe627392 for ; Thu, 21 Jul 2005 16:31:40 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2005 16:31:40 -0700 (PDT) From: Jon Falconer To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Subject: ipfw loads with forwarding disabled X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2005 23:31:54 -0000 I'm running FreeBSD 5.4-RELEASE. When I load ipfw.ko I get: ipfw2 initialized, divert disabled, rule-based forwarding disabled, default to deny, logging disabled I want to use the forward action in the rule set, logging would be nice too. When I try to add a rule which uses the forward action, I get: Line 2: getsockopt(IP_FW_ADD): Invalid argument and line 2 looks similar to: add 1200 forward ##.##.##.1 src-ip ##.##.##.0/23 in recv dc1 At this point I'm guessing that "rule-based forwarding disabled" has something to do with it no liking my rule. I tried adding "options IPFIREWALL_FORWARD" to the kernel config and rebuilt the kernel. But I still get the same message as above when loading ipfw (kernel module). I've perused all the relevant sections of the handbook that I could find without finding any more clues. What does it take to change the default feature set of the ipfw kernel module? Or do I have to compile it into the kernel to alter this? Thanks for your suggestions, Jon