Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 22:30:29 -0700 From: Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@icir.org> To: "Daniel C. Sobral" <dcs@tcoip.com.br> Cc: ipfw@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: ipfw2 vs. ipfw1 and 4.7 Message-ID: <20020910223029.D84624@iguana.icir.org> In-Reply-To: <3D7E3FDE.6070805@tcoip.com.br>; from dcs@tcoip.com.br on Tue, Sep 10, 2002 at 03:54:22PM -0300 References: <20020902082743.D87097@iguana.icir.org> <3D7E3FDE.6070805@tcoip.com.br>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Sep 10, 2002 at 03:54:22PM -0300, Daniel C. Sobral wrote:
> Luigi Rizzo wrote:
> > People,
> > now that the release of 4.7 is approaching, i would really appreciate
> > if you could give ipfw2 a try and see whether it breaks anything
> > in your rulesets. Also have a look at the manpage highlighting the
> > differences between ipfw1 and ipfw2 to see if your rulesets can be
> > simplified/made more efficient.
>
> I love ipfw2, even though the breakage of fwd caused me a huge headache.
which reminds me, i have to fix the byte order in port numbers in
fwd actions...
> As a side note, the man page mentions that 32 sets are available, but
> set 31 is illegal when I try to use it (and sometimes produce very weird
> results indeed).
i guess i have to clarify the wording -- the manpage says
Each rule is associated to a set_number in the range 0..31, with
the latter reserved for the default rule. Sets can be individu-
with wich i meant to say that you cannot use set 31 for anything else,
nor disable it.
What "weird results" were you seeing ?
cheers
luigi
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-ipfw" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020910223029.D84624>