From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG  Fri Jun 20 11:18:24 2003
Return-Path: <owner-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 1F34337B401
	for <freebsd-net@freebsd.org>; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:18:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.sandvine.com (sandvine.com [199.243.201.138])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79AF143FB1
	for <freebsd-net@freebsd.org>; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:18:23 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from don@sandvine.com)
Received: by mail.sandvine.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
	id <K42CXBMH>; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 14:18:20 -0400
Message-ID: <FE045D4D9F7AED4CBFF1B3B813C8533702741AF6@mail.sandvine.com>
From: Don Bowman <don@sandvine.com>
To: 'Luigi Rizzo' <rizzo@icir.org>, Don Bowman <don@sandvine.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 14:18:17 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
cc: "'freebsd-net@freebsd.org'" <freebsd-net@freebsd.org>
Subject: RE: nested ipfw dummynet pipes
X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD <freebsd-net.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net>,
	<mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-net>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-net@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net>,
	<mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 18:18:24 -0000

From: Luigi Rizzo [mailto:rizzo@icir.org]
> 
> On Fri, Jun 20, 2003 at 01:41:21PM -0400, Don Bowman wrote:
> > is there any way, in a bridging config, to have nested pipes?
> 
> net.inet.ip.fw.one_pass=0 should do the job, i think the comment
> in the manpage is now incorrect and the code (in net/bridge.c)
> has been fixed (one-line) to implement this.
> 
> Check the commit logs, i don't have them handy at the moment.


Thanks very much, I will check this. I assume this will be true
for IPFW2 rather than IPFW.

It appears that 1.16.2.23, nov 21 2002, RELENG_4 has this
from the log:
"MFC: obey to fw_one_pass in bridge and layer 2 firewalling (the latter
only affects ipfw2 users).
Move fw_one_pass from ip_fw[2].c to ip_input.c to avoid depending on
IPFIREWALL."

I will try this out.