From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Aug 31 18:18:47 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3391016A4CE for ; Tue, 31 Aug 2004 18:18:47 +0000 (GMT) Received: from mail.mcneil.com (rrcs-west-24-199-45-54.biz.rr.com [24.199.45.54]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0FA8543D46 for ; Tue, 31 Aug 2004 18:18:45 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from sean@mcneil.com) Received: from localhost (localhost.mcneil.com [127.0.0.1]) by mail.mcneil.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7AC1AFD06B; Tue, 31 Aug 2004 11:18:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.mcneil.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (server.mcneil.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 44662-02; Tue, 31 Aug 2004 11:18:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [24.199.45.54] (mcneil.com [24.199.45.54]) by mail.mcneil.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81CA4FD011; Tue, 31 Aug 2004 11:18:43 -0700 (PDT) From: Sean McNeil To: Oliver Brandmueller In-Reply-To: <20040831102849.GD52217@e-Gitt.NET> References: <1093919355.39775.2.camel@server.mcneil.com> <20040831102849.GD52217@e-Gitt.NET> Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1093976323.44906.2.camel@server.mcneil.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.6 Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 11:18:43 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at mcneil.com cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: RELENG_5 ipfw problem X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 18:18:47 -0000 On Tue, 2004-08-31 at 03:28, Oliver Brandmueller wrote: > Hi. > > On Mon, Aug 30, 2004 at 07:29:15PM -0700, Sean McNeil wrote: > > How are you compiling ipfw2? I have it built into my kernel and have no > > issues at all. Are you using it as a loadable module or part of the > > kernel? > > Meanwhile (as I wrote in the thread) I have IPFW compiled in by using > options IPFIREWALL and options IPFIREWALL_FORWARD - which is now > mandatory to have forwarding support. Sorry, this must have been clipped out of the messages I saw. > When you say "no issues at all", do you also use forwarding to change > the next hop of IP packets? This seems to be the only problem and is a > very special setup. I am not changing the next hop myself. I'm using NAT on the forwarding side. Guess this is changing the packets differently than your special case. Sean