From owner-freebsd-doc Wed Aug 15 21:40:10 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-doc@freebsd.org Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [216.136.204.21]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0121F37B407 for ; Wed, 15 Aug 2001 21:40:01 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.11.4/8.11.4) id f7G4e0365242; Wed, 15 Aug 2001 21:40:00 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from gnats) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [216.136.204.21]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A95F537B40F for ; Wed, 15 Aug 2001 21:31:32 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nobody@FreeBSD.org) Received: (from nobody@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.11.4/8.11.4) id f7G4VWh64514; Wed, 15 Aug 2001 21:31:32 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nobody) Message-Id: <200108160431.f7G4VWh64514@freefall.freebsd.org> Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 21:31:32 -0700 (PDT) From: ncalvo To: freebsd-gnats-submit@freebsd.org X-Send-Pr-Version: www-1.0 Subject: docs/29744: [PATCH] SGML tags and entities in the "Dialup firewalling with FreeBSD" article (minor nit-picking) Sender: owner-freebsd-doc@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org >Number: 29744 >Category: docs >Synopsis: [PATCH] SGML tags and entities in the "Dialup firewalling with FreeBSD" article (minor nit-picking) >Confidential: no >Severity: non-critical >Priority: low >Responsible: freebsd-doc >State: open >Quarter: >Keywords: >Date-Required: >Class: doc-bug >Submitter-Id: current-users >Arrival-Date: Wed Aug 15 21:40:00 PDT 2001 >Closed-Date: >Last-Modified: >Originator: ncalvo >Release: 4.3-RELEASE >Organization: >Environment: FreeBSD amnesiac.no.domain 4.3-RELEASE FreeBSD 4.3-RELEASE #0: Tue Aug 7 02:33:38 CEST 2001 root@amnesiac.no.domain:/usr/src/sys/compile/AMNESIAC i386 >Description: SGML markup changes to the article "Dialup firewalling with FreeBSD", which is part of the FreeBSD documentation: http://www.FreeBSD.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/articles/dialup-firewall/article.sgml Please note that the enclosed patch is relative to the referenced file (post pr docs/29086), not the one corresponding to 4.3-RELEASE. Nothing really important, just minor nit-picking. >How-To-Repeat: N/A >Fix: (patch follows; length==54 lines) --- article.sgml.orig Thu Aug 16 06:02:35 2001 +++ article.sgml Thu Aug 16 06:19:57 2001 @@ -28,7 +28,7 @@ This article documents how to setup a firewall using a PPP - dialup with FreeBSD and IPFW, and specifically with firewalling over + dialup with FreeBSD and &man.ipfw.8;, and specifically with firewalling over a dialup with a dynamically assigned IP address. This document does not cover setting up your PPP connection in the first place. @@ -175,7 +175,7 @@ order of allow first and then deny. The premise is that you add the rules for your allows, and then everything else is denied. :) - Now, let's make the dir /etc/firewall. Change into the directory and + Now, let's make the dir /etc/firewall. Change into the directory and edit the file fwrules as we specified in rc.conf. Please note that you can change this filename to be anything you wish. This guide just gives an example of a @@ -247,16 +247,16 @@ - Why are you using natd and ipfw when you could be using - the built in ppp-filters? + Why are you using &man.natd.8; and &man.ipfw.8; when you could be using + the built in &man.ppp.8; filters? I'll have to be honest and say there's no definitive reason - why I use ipfw and natd instead of the built in ppp filters. From + why I use &man.ipfw.8; and &man.natd.8; instead of the built in &man.ppp.8; filters. From the discussions I've had with people the consensus seems to be - that while ipfw is certainly more powerful and more configurable - than the ppp filters, what it makes up for in functionality it + that while &man.ipfw.8; is certainly more powerful and more configurable + than the &man.ppp.8; filters, what it makes up for in functionality it loses in being easy to customise. One of the reasons I use it is because I prefer firewalling to be done at a kernel level rather than by a userland program. @@ -289,9 +289,9 @@ - The simple answer is no. The reason for this is that natd is + The simple answer is no. The reason for this is that &man.natd.8; is doing address translation for anything being - diverted through the tun0 device. As far as it's concerned + diverted through the tun0 device. As far as it's concerned incoming packets will speak only to the dynamically assigned IP address and NOT to the internal network. Note though that you can add a rule like $fwcmd add deny all from >Release-Note: >Audit-Trail: >Unformatted: To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-doc" in the body of the message