Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 16:51:50 -0500 From: Charles Swiger <cswiger@mac.com> To: Barbish3@adelphia.net Cc: Free BSD Questions list <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Problems resolving hosts Message-ID: <25D1F89E-696F-11D8-870A-003065ABFD92@mac.com> In-Reply-To: <MIEPLLIBMLEEABPDBIEGCEBAFNAA.Barbish3@adelphia.net> References: <MIEPLLIBMLEEABPDBIEGCEBAFNAA.Barbish3@adelphia.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Feb 27, 2004, at 4:18 PM, JJB wrote:
> Well if you had paid closer attention to what Travis wrote you would
> have read that nothing had changed on that 5.2 lan box or his lan
> network so your guess about resolv.conf is way off base, and that
> UFS2 being the problem is a much more sound opinion.
Sigh. I didn't claim that his resolv.conf changed; I didn't claim that
his LAN network changed; I said that the behavior he describes is quite
close to what would happen if one of the nameservers referenced in
resolv.conf was having problems.
Do you not comprehend this?
> And as far as IPFW goes, your statement is again another case of you
> not paying attention to what was written. You really need to read
> closely before opening your mouth saying things which are not true.
> I never said "that IPFW is completely broken" what I said is ipfw
> stateful rules do not work in an Lan network when ipfw's
> divert/nated legacy subroutine is used. This subject was beat to
> death in a long thread back around the first of the year. You should
> check the archives for the technical details before you sound off
> demonstrating to everyone how little you know about what truly has
> transpired. Open mouth insert foot.
Young one, you are considerably less clever than you evidently think
you are. That's not surprising; this is unfortunately true of most
people. A tone of condescending snobbery pretty much is never
appropriate, regardless of who is right or wrong.
I don't need to review the archives to remember that discussion; at
that time I read them and concluded that you were unable to understand
how to make IPFW+NAT work the way you expected it to. However, there
are lots of people who use IPFW+NAT successfully ("success" by their
definitions, that is), just as there are people who use PF or other
tools.
--
-Chuck
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?25D1F89E-696F-11D8-870A-003065ABFD92>