From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Aug 11 08:37:30 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 139161065674 for ; Sat, 11 Aug 2012 08:37:30 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from s.khanchi@gmail.com) Received: from mail-ob0-f182.google.com (mail-ob0-f182.google.com [209.85.214.182]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C79FD8FC12 for ; Sat, 11 Aug 2012 08:37:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: by obbun3 with SMTP id un3so4681921obb.13 for ; Sat, 11 Aug 2012 01:37:29 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=HY83N8ue3nkbMHg866C/DzJ3VVKU7ZiWJB6MGwDcqYk=; b=xdhac+EVYPoVCXNbVa9DOd7w0OsHOMF9B3SCjyz24/SuzWRFNEuMfQyRt3e5JD+98y y0H1iyUzD889OiYyJwsU2Y20YBD0yMuynTYt09wZyKI06I0subxByIZ6XrWdul2+gem0 raKu6O+WbOvi8mPyYLie7bdN/hL7kOQC0bifrBab8eZIqhRZ46UMgfj43nxn18f/cJiX zZD14pYf0goiYNC/sGYJwDoFEmByvHmr+dPyOOc8W38goJO+6KBPkWciF8wFsMhs7V0C OSFQaBm9w+zCqmg2V6f3+dPvBv3cD+Tl8xDJUjLAjfgwIEY1FMBrES6MKkQakwHGH1h1 vm0Q== Received: by 10.182.226.104 with SMTP id rr8mr1421255obc.41.1344674249047; Sat, 11 Aug 2012 01:37:29 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: s.khanchi@gmail.com Received: by 10.76.154.133 with HTTP; Sat, 11 Aug 2012 01:37:08 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <37DC844A-4A65-438D-8DD3-B8EFA7B7FE2A@gmail.com> References: <37DC844A-4A65-438D-8DD3-B8EFA7B7FE2A@gmail.com> From: h bagade Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2012 13:07:08 +0430 X-Google-Sender-Auth: Im-EdCcItr2xyKx1khHiYqYKITA Message-ID: To: Nikolay Denev Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.5 Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: problem using ng_patch 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: Sat, 11 Aug 2012 08:37:30 -0000 On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 12:57 PM, Nikolay Denev wrote: > On Aug 11, 2012, at 11:07 AM, h bagade wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > I want to use the node ng_patch, to set the ToS field of special class of > > packets. I try to test the function by a simple test scenario and > > encountered problem using it. I have no idea why the problem occurs. > > > > Here I explain the test scenario I've used. > > > > I have a topology like this: > > > > > |A:192.168.8.8|<---->|192.168.8.26--(B)--192.168.7.26|<---->|C:192.168.7.20| > > -------------------------------- > > A, C: two end stations > > B: a router > > -------------------------------- > > netgraph settings: > > kldload ng_ipfw > > ngctl mkpeer ipfw: patch 300 in > > ngctl name ipfw:300 tos > > ngctl msg tos: setconfig {count=1 csum_flags=1 ops=[ {mode=1 value=0x05 > > length=1 offset=1}]} > > -------------------------------- > > ipfw rule: > > ipfw add 20 netgraph 300 icmp from any to 192.168.7.20 > > > > This configuration works well and when A pings C or C pings A, the > packets > > destined to 192.168.7.20(station C) gets the ToS: 0x05. > > The problem occurs when I change the ipfw rule to the following; > > > > ipfw add 20 netgraph 300 icmp from 192.168.7.20 to any > > > > By this rule, neither A can ping C nor C can ping A! the packets sent to > > ng_patch node never comes back to the next ipfw rule! > > > > I don't know what's the difference between these two scenarios (only the > > checking from destination address is changed to source address), but it's > > what I saw in my tests. I really hope to understand what's happening. > > > > Any hints or comments would help > > _______________________________________________ > > freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list > > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net > > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > > Hi, > > Do you have "sysctl net.inet.ip.fw.one_pass=0" set? > > Regards, > > yes, As I described I've two scenarios, one work but the other doesn't, and the only difference is on ipfw rule!