From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jun 23 10:30:29 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A40616A41C for ; Thu, 23 Jun 2005 10:30:29 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from rizzo@icir.org) Received: from xorpc.icir.org (xorpc.icir.org [192.150.187.68]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 638E143D53 for ; Thu, 23 Jun 2005 10:30:29 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from rizzo@icir.org) Received: from xorpc.icir.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by xorpc.icir.org (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j5NAUTLt019374; Thu, 23 Jun 2005 03:30:29 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from rizzo@xorpc.icir.org) Received: (from rizzo@localhost) by xorpc.icir.org (8.12.11/8.12.3/Submit) id j5NAUTQ2019373; Thu, 23 Jun 2005 03:30:29 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from rizzo) Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2005 03:30:28 -0700 From: Luigi Rizzo To: Ari Suutari Message-ID: <20050623033028.A18762@xorpc.icir.org> References: <42B7B352.8040806@suutari.iki.fi> <42BA6A22.6030506@suutari.iki.fi> <20050623010618.B7580@xorpc.icir.org> <42BA8CA0.3070501@suutari.iki.fi> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <42BA8CA0.3070501@suutari.iki.fi>; from ari@suutari.iki.fi on Thu, Jun 23, 2005 at 01:19:12PM +0300 Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Policy routing idea (Was: ipfw: Would it be possible to continue processing rest of rules after match ?) X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2005 10:30:29 -0000 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