From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jul 4 07:41:33 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 761DC37B401 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 07:41:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sccrmhc11.comcast.net (sccrmhc11.comcast.net [204.127.202.55]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9714F43F93 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 07:41:32 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from freebsd-questions-local@be-well.no-ip.com) Received: from be-well.ilk.org (be-well.no-ip.com[24.147.188.198]) by comcast.net (sccrmhc11) with ESMTP id <2003070414413101100kofaue>; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 14:41:31 +0000 Received: from be-well.ilk.org (lowellg.ne.client2.attbi.com [24.147.188.198] (may be forged)) by be-well.ilk.org (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h64EfVro002806 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 10:41:31 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from freebsd-questions-local@be-well.no-ip.com) Received: (from lowell@localhost) by be-well.ilk.org (8.12.9/8.12.6/Submit) id h64EfVjh002803; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 10:41:31 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: be-well.ilk.org: lowell set sender to freebsd-questions-local@be-well.ilk.org using -f Sender: lowell@be-well.no-ip.com To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org References: From: Lowell Gilbert Date: 04 Jul 2003 10:41:31 -0400 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <44r856qrqc.fsf@be-well.ilk.org> Lines: 19 User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Subject: Re: ipfw troubles X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 Jul 2003 14:41:33 -0000 Dan Phiffer writes: > I guess this means I'm not serving DHCP - what kind of rule would fix > that? There are two sides. You need to accept the packets coming in to dhcps, as well as the ones going out to dhcpc. There are a number of different ways to do this, but make sure you keep it limited to the interface on which you intend to supply these addresses. > I read somewhere that simply using natd adds statefulness to an > otherwise stateless ipfw configuration. Would an unstateful ipfw setup be > less secure in this case? Not necessarily, no. The kinds of state being kept are quite different, and there isn't any particular relationship between them. In fact, it's a lot more difficult to use stateful rules with natd running, because the packets match differently depending on whether they've been NAT'd already or not.