From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Apr 18 21:34:49 2003 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 D975137B401 for ; Fri, 18 Apr 2003 21:34:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.parodius.com (mail.parodius.com [64.71.184.173]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1B3F43F3F for ; Fri, 18 Apr 2003 21:34:47 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jdc@pentarou.parodius.com) Received: from pentarou.parodius.com (jdc@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.parodius.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h3J4Y4jU007088 for ; Fri, 18 Apr 2003 21:34:05 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jdc@pentarou.parodius.com) Received: (from jdc@localhost) by pentarou.parodius.com (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id h3J4Y4Rt007087 for freebsd-net@freebsd.org; Fri, 18 Apr 2003 21:34:04 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 21:34:04 -0700 From: Jeremy Chadwick To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20030419043404.GA7069@parodius.com> References: <20030418174956.GA71335@parodius.com> <20030418200936.82331.qmail@web10410.mail.yahoo.com> <20030418201645.GA77986@parodius.com> <20030418220229.GB39466@blossom.cjclark.org> <20030418235214.GB85777@parodius.com> <20030419043055.GA31406@pit.databus.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030419043055.GA31406@pit.databus.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i Subject: Re: BIND-8/9 interface bug? Or is it FreeBSD? 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: Sat, 19 Apr 2003 04:34:50 -0000 Ah, you're right -- I definitely skipped over the "outgoing" phrase in Crist's note. My apologies. I'll try taking a look at the interface without the outgoing ipfw blocks in place, and report back. I'm starting to wonder if it's NOTIFY traffic... -- | Jeremy Chadwick jdc@parodius.com | | Parodius Networking http://www.parodius.com/ | | UNIX Systems Administrator Mountain View, CA, USA | | Making life hard for others since 1977. | On Sat, Apr 19, 2003 at 12:30:55AM -0400, Barney Wolff wrote: > On Fri, Apr 18, 2003 at 04:52:14PM -0700, Jeremy Chadwick wrote: > > Since when? :-) That wouldn't make very much sense, and > > would be extremely misleading for network administrators. > > bpf should have the highest priority, well above ipfw. > > > > I just verified that fact with a test: blocking any telnet I/O > > across my public interface and telnetting in from my home > > workstation: > > You didn't listen to the answer: bpf is closer to the driver than ipfw, > so it will see inbound packets that ipfw will block, but not see outbound > packets that ipfw has already blocked. > > -- > Barney Wolff http://www.databus.com/bwresume.pdf > I'm available by contract or FT, in the NYC metro area or via the 'Net.