From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Dec 14 14:20:11 2004 Return-Path: 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 69ABD16A4CE; Tue, 14 Dec 2004 14:20:11 +0000 (GMT) Received: from xorpc.icir.org (xorpc.icir.org [192.150.187.68]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5135143D49; Tue, 14 Dec 2004 14:20:11 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from rizzo@icir.org) Received: from xorpc.icir.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by xorpc.icir.org (8.12.11/8.12.8) with ESMTP id iBEEKAjW078040; Tue, 14 Dec 2004 06:20:10 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from rizzo@xorpc.icir.org) Received: (from rizzo@localhost) by xorpc.icir.org (8.12.11/8.12.3/Submit) id iBEEKAA4078039; Tue, 14 Dec 2004 06:20:10 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from rizzo) Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 06:20:10 -0800 From: Luigi Rizzo To: Andre Oppermann , freebsd-net@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20041214062010.A77933@xorpc.icir.org> References: <41BEF2AF.470F9079@freebsd.org> <20041214141307.GA684@empiric.icir.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <20041214141307.GA684@empiric.icir.org>; from bms@spc.org on Tue, Dec 14, 2004 at 06:13:07AM -0800 Subject: Re: per-interface packet filters, design approach X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 14:20:11 -0000 On Tue, Dec 14, 2004 at 06:13:07AM -0800, Bruce M Simpson wrote: ... > What I'm really missing in IPFW is the ability to maintain one or more > 'shadow rulesets'. These rulesets may not be the active rulesets, but > I can manipulate them as tables, independently of the active ruleset(s), ??? What what ??? They do exist, they are called 'set' and you can associate rules to a specific set, atomically enable/disable/swap/rename sets, etc. This was designed exactly for this purpose (atomic updates of firewall configuration with a single syscall). have a look at the ipfw manpage and then see if it answer your needs. cheers luigi > IPF and PF have such functionality, IPFW does not. The lack of a documented > ABI/API for access to IPFW by applications other than ipfw(8) is something > which I'm leaving out of the picture for the moment. > I don't really consider using 'skipto' and separate sections of rule > index number space a valid answer here, because we should have the ability > to independently flush each ruleset. > > When extended to stateful rules (I am talking here purely about the simple > stateless packet filter case), this comes in even more useful. > > Regards, > BMS