Date: Tue, 9 Jun 1998 09:01:08 -0400 (EDT) From: Snob Art Genre <benedict@echonyc.com> To: Tom Torrance <freebsd@tomqnx.com> Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: IPFW problem? Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.96.980609085936.10243C-100000@echonyc.com> In-Reply-To: <m0yjJW2-00087JC@TomQNX.tomqnx.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 9 Jun 1998, Tom Torrance wrote: > The sample file to the contrary, it appears that ipfw will not > allow the "established" keyword for the "allow icmp" case. > > Is this a misunderstanding on my part or a genuine fault"? 'Established' matches on the ACK bit to make sure a packet is part of an established connection, right? It's a misunderstanding: ICMP is connectionless. > Is there another way to allow ICMP only as part of the TCP protocol? I'm not sure I understand this. ICMP is logically at the same level as TCP, it goes over IP. Ben "You have your mind on computers, it seems." To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.GSO.3.96.980609085936.10243C-100000>