Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2005 03:30:28 -0700 From: Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@icir.org> To: Ari Suutari <ari@suutari.iki.fi> Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Policy routing idea (Was: ipfw: Would it be possible to continue processing rest of rules after match ?) Message-ID: <20050623033028.A18762@xorpc.icir.org> In-Reply-To: <42BA8CA0.3070501@suutari.iki.fi>; from ari@suutari.iki.fi on Thu, Jun 23, 2005 at 01:19:12PM %2B0300 References: <42B7B352.8040806@suutari.iki.fi> <42BA6A22.6030506@suutari.iki.fi> <20050623010618.B7580@xorpc.icir.org> <42BA8CA0.3070501@suutari.iki.fi>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Jun 23, 2005 at 01:19:12PM +0300, Ari Suutari wrote: > Hi, > > Luigi Rizzo wrote: > > > > BTW for the 'setnexthop', the port number does not really make > > much sense... though it can be useful as a degenerate 'nexthop' case > > to forward to a local port. > > Didn't remember to comment on this. I left the port number > possibility there although it is really questionable if it > is useful (I won't be needing it now). ok. Seen the patch, looks good. It's always nice to see how easy it is to add new options to ipfw2 :) cheers luigi
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050623033028.A18762>