From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Feb 27 13:51:52 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCB3416A4CF for ; Fri, 27 Feb 2004 13:51:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtpout.mac.com (smtpout.mac.com [17.250.248.84]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA6F243D1F for ; Fri, 27 Feb 2004 13:51:52 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from cswiger@mac.com) Received: from mac.com (smtpin08-en2 [10.13.10.153]) by smtpout.mac.com (8.12.6/MantshX 2.0) with ESMTP id i1RLpp22024063; Fri, 27 Feb 2004 13:51:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.1.1.193] ([199.103.21.225]) (authenticated bits=0) by mac.com (Xserve/smtpin08/MantshX 3.0) with ESMTP id i1RLpoPP028379; Fri, 27 Feb 2004 13:51:50 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v612) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: <25D1F89E-696F-11D8-870A-003065ABFD92@mac.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Charles Swiger Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 16:51:50 -0500 To: Barbish3@adelphia.net X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.612) cc: Free BSD Questions list Subject: Re: Problems resolving hosts X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 21:51:53 -0000 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