From owner-freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org  Fri Aug  5 08:03:27 2016
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org>
Delivered-To: freebsd-ipfw@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org
 [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1])
 by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66327BAF9E7
 for <freebsd-ipfw@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org>;
 Fri,  5 Aug 2016 08:03:27 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from crest@rlwinm.de)
Received: from smtp.rlwinm.de (smtp.rlwinm.de [IPv6:2a01:4f8:201:31ef::e])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
 (Client did not present a certificate)
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 24F761B45
 for <freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org>; Fri,  5 Aug 2016 08:03:27 +0000 (UTC)
 (envelope-from crest@rlwinm.de)
Received: from vader9.bultmann.eu (unknown [87.253.189.132])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by smtp.rlwinm.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 602B12415
 for <freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org>; Fri,  5 Aug 2016 10:03:24 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: Re: IPFW: more "orthogonal? state operations, push into 11?
To: freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org
References: <9229d4f7-8466-57b0-c954-117736102bd7@FreeBSD.org>
 <5755F0D3.9060909@FreeBSD.org> <5759DB79.10205@FreeBSD.org>
 <3d09497c-136c-e217-154c-ba00e6879c6f@freebsd.org>
 <20160616005016.A15883@sola.nimnet.asn.au>
 <d7bef617-70a4-f761-7d09-9413eb720b11@freebsd.org>
 <64d6bdea-fa32-f16f-2fdd-abd33d54d04e@freebsd.org>
 <46d5cfde-c4ac-ebd0-3c13-2759037621f3@FreeBSD.org>
 <11a5d41b-109a-434b-e8e0-7ed2826a8cc9@FreeBSD.org>
 <ee745842-c33e-4e73-f84c-6eb11f283b51@FreeBSD.org>
 <a3e98e25-4c0d-56ad-5640-0b6f13ebeb21@freebsd.org>
 <6c2ebc59-c5b8-5be0-8842-897b2de44d1f@FreeBSD.org>
 <3c3d7026-ea60-c0dd-527b-edd841274585@freebsd.org>
 <20160805034606.K56585@sola.nimnet.asn.au>
 <24bf65d1-1b4f-07a0-5a3c-93fd906f5705@freebsd.org>
From: Jan Bramkamp <crest@rlwinm.de>
Message-ID: <033c79d5-2a66-1000-7d2b-c81fdb287690@rlwinm.de>
Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2016 10:03:23 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:45.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <24bf65d1-1b4f-07a0-5a3c-93fd906f5705@freebsd.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-BeenThere: freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IPFW Technical Discussions <freebsd-ipfw.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-ipfw>,
 <mailto:freebsd-ipfw-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ipfw/>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-ipfw-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ipfw>,
 <mailto:freebsd-ipfw-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2016 08:03:27 -0000



On 05/08/16 06:36, Julian Elischer wrote:
> I ended up having to do this via an ugly use of skiptos where packets
> I wanted to forward, were identified early and then sent to a duplicate
> set of
> rules which also did the divert,  but then did the forward. I think
> there were
> about 25 rules duplicated.

You could deduplicate this with a call/return pair but good luck ever 
debugging it if something goes wrong because the call/return stack is 
tied to the mbuf "allowing" you to call during igress and return during 
egress for maximal confusion.