From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Sep 14 15:09:35 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org 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 3027E16A412 for ; Thu, 14 Sep 2006 15:09:35 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from barney@databus.com) Received: from mail1.acecape.com (mail1.acecape.com [66.114.74.12]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3A2D43D49 for ; Thu, 14 Sep 2006 15:09:34 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from barney@databus.com) Received: from pit.databus.com (pool-72-89-128-62.nycmny.fios.verizon.net [72.89.128.62]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail1.acecape.com (8.13.7/8.13.7) with ESMTP id k8EF930u025468 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 14 Sep 2006 11:09:03 -0400 Received: from pit.databus.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pit.databus.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id k8EF92Kf023779; Thu, 14 Sep 2006 11:09:02 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from barney@pit.databus.com) Received: (from barney@localhost) by pit.databus.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/Submit) id k8EF92PZ023778; Thu, 14 Sep 2006 11:09:02 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from barney) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 11:09:02 -0400 From: Barney Wolff To: Phil Regnauld Message-ID: <20060914150902.GA17230@pit.databus.com> References: <4509592A.3040602@digiware.nl> <20060914134611.GW76403@catpipe.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20060914134611.GW76403@catpipe.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.56 on 72.89.128.62 Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org, Willem Jan Withagen Subject: Re: blocking a string in a packet using ipfw X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 15:09:35 -0000 On Thu, Sep 14, 2006 at 03:46:12PM +0200, Phil Regnauld wrote: > Willem Jan Withagen (wjw) writes: > > > > Now I'm pretty shure that ipfw does not stretch indefinitely to contain > > perhaps something like 100.000 ip-numbers (would be a nice test. :) ) > > Actually, it should. I have over 600000 addresses in an ipfw table with no observable trouble. But that rule is triggered only about 10000 times a day (part of a spam blocker). -- Barney Wolff I never met a computer I didn't like.