Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2018 16:18:04 +0200 From: Andrea Venturoli <ml@netfence.it> To: "Andrey V. Elsukov" <bu7cher@yandex.ru>, freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Questions about ipfw's dynamic rules' dyn_keepalive Message-ID: <07ab14c5-466d-2d7e-9447-6b7d1e9bd823@netfence.it> In-Reply-To: <25e56a77-8374-d273-0b5e-2f11c1b03ff8@yandex.ru> References: <04ad23ad-4020-7c07-8d75-eef6e84f4de8@netfence.it> <756b78e2-4e65-ab03-1e91-943a77fdf45d@yandex.ru> <25e56a77-8374-d273-0b5e-2f11c1b03ff8@yandex.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 04/03/18 12:54, Andrey V. Elsukov wrote: > On 03.04.2018 13:45, Andrey V. Elsukov wrote: >>> Can anybody give any hint about the above behaviours or point me to good >>> documentation? The man pages is very brief on this, unfortunately. >> >> Hi, Thanks for your answer. >> ipfw uses M_SKIP_FIREWALL flag for self-generated packets. Thus >> keep-alive packets are sent bypass the rules. When you use NAT, I guess >> keep-alive packets have private source address, because they are not go >> through the NAT rule. And because of this remote host drops them without >> reply. If this is the reason, since I run tcpdump on the client (internal network) I should have seen them arriving, shouldn't I? > You can try this patch: > > https://people.freebsd.org/~ae/ipfw_bypass_own_packets11.diff > > It adds sysctl variable net.inet.ip.fw.bypass_own_packets, that can > control the behavior of M_SKIP_FIREWALL flag. It seems this is a patch against HEAD and it doesn't apply cleanly to 11.1R. Unfortunately the file it modifies seems to have changed a lot and I don't know how to adapt this. Is there a plan to get this patch in the source in the future? If not, why? Are there any disadvantages? bye & Thanks av.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?07ab14c5-466d-2d7e-9447-6b7d1e9bd823>