From owner-freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org Thu Aug 4 16:08:50 2016 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ipfw@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A05EBAFCAB for ; Thu, 4 Aug 2016 16:08:50 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from julian@freebsd.org) Received: from vps1.elischer.org (vps1.elischer.org [204.109.63.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "vps1.elischer.org", Issuer "CA Cert Signing Authority" (not verified)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 12CC6155F; Thu, 4 Aug 2016 16:08:49 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from julian@freebsd.org) Received: from Julian-MBP3.local (ppp121-45-226-8.lns20.per1.internode.on.net [121.45.226.8]) (authenticated bits=0) by vps1.elischer.org (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id u74G8bv7001875 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 4 Aug 2016 09:08:40 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from julian@freebsd.org) Subject: Re: IPFW: more "orthogonal? state operations, push into 11? To: "Andrey V. Elsukov" , lev@FreeBSD.org, Ian Smith References: <9229d4f7-8466-57b0-c954-117736102bd7@FreeBSD.org> <5755F0D3.9060909@FreeBSD.org> <5759DB79.10205@FreeBSD.org> <3d09497c-136c-e217-154c-ba00e6879c6f@freebsd.org> <20160616005016.A15883@sola.nimnet.asn.au> <64d6bdea-fa32-f16f-2fdd-abd33d54d04e@freebsd.org> <46d5cfde-c4ac-ebd0-3c13-2759037621f3@FreeBSD.org> <11a5d41b-109a-434b-e8e0-7ed2826a8cc9@FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org, "Alexander V. Chernikov" From: Julian Elischer Message-ID: <713a45fd-70a1-e0ed-a3b9-bf057cec12a9@freebsd.org> Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2016 00:08:31 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: IPFW Technical Discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2016 16:08:50 -0000 On 4/08/2016 7:20 PM, Andrey V. Elsukov wrote: > On 04.08.16 06:58, Julian Elischer wrote: >> o while thinking about states etc, it occured to me, what does THIS do >> on subsequent packets in the session? >> >> >> 10 skipto tablearg tcp from table(3) to me keep-state > I think it will not work like you expected when you have created this > rule :) > yes that's what I was thinking.. I'm guessing that the table is not evaluated due to the dynamic match and thus the skipto fails, either doing nothing, or dropping the packet (not sure which)