From owner-freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org  Thu Aug  4 16:12:49 2016
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org>
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 3D32BBAFDDF
 for <freebsd-ipfw@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org>;
 Thu,  4 Aug 2016 16:12:49 +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 113BF186E;
 Thu,  4 Aug 2016 16:12:48 +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 u74GCh05001899
 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO);
 Thu, 4 Aug 2016 09:12:46 -0700 (PDT)
 (envelope-from julian@freebsd.org)
Subject: Re: IPFW: more "orthogonal? state operations, push into 11?
To: "Andrey V. Elsukov" <ae@FreeBSD.org>, lev@FreeBSD.org,
 Ian Smith <smithi@nimnet.asn.au>
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>
 <d7bef617-70a4-f761-7d09-9413eb720b11@freebsd.org>
 <64d6bdea-fa32-f16f-2fdd-abd33d54d04e@freebsd.org>
 <46d5cfde-c4ac-ebd0-3c13-2759037621f3@FreeBSD.org>
 <11a5d41b-109a-434b-e8e0-7ed2826a8cc9@FreeBSD.org>
 <ee745842-c33e-4e73-f84c-6eb11f283b51@FreeBSD.org>
 <a3e98e25-4c0d-56ad-5640-0b6f13ebeb21@freebsd.org>
 <6c2ebc59-c5b8-5be0-8842-897b2de44d1f@FreeBSD.org>
Cc: freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org, "Alexander V. Chernikov" <melifaro@freebsd.org>
From: Julian Elischer <julian@freebsd.org>
Message-ID: <3c3d7026-ea60-c0dd-527b-edd841274585@freebsd.org>
Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2016 00:12:37 +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: <6c2ebc59-c5b8-5be0-8842-897b2de44d1f@FreeBSD.org>
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 <freebsd-ipfw.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-ipfw>,
 <mailto:freebsd-ipfw-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ipfw/>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-ipfw-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ipfw>,
 <mailto:freebsd-ipfw-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2016 16:12:49 -0000

On 4/08/2016 6:50 PM, Andrey V. Elsukov wrote:
> On 04.08.16 06:42, Julian Elischer wrote:
>> so it's a combination of #1 and #2 in my list.  I think I originally
>> thought of having just #1.
>>
>> A combination is less useful for me as you need to do:
>>
>> 20 skipto 400 tcp from table(2) to me setup record-state
>> 21 skipto 400 tcp from table(2) to me setup
>> to make the entire session do the same thing.
> So, in your example what wrong with just using keep-state?
> "record-state without immediate action" == "keep-state without implicit
> check-state" needed to solve issues with NAT or something similar, that
> was described by Lev.
>
because keep-state is a check-state for ALL packets going past, 
regardless of whether they match the pattern.

at least that's what I have observed.