Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 13:33:31 -0500 From: Clark Gaylord <cgaylord@vt.edu> To: Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@aciri.org> Subject: Re: non-learning bridge for pathological network Message-ID: <20001215133331.E84586@cgaylord.async.vt.edu> Resent-Message-ID: <20001215183346.1749A2E1@cgaylord.async.vt.edu> In-Reply-To: <200012150705.eBF75qr93086@iguana.aciri.org>; from rizzo@aciri.org on Thu, Dec 14, 2000 at 11:05:52PM -0800 References: <20001215002514.C84586@cgaylord.async.vt.edu> <200012150705.eBF75qr93086@iguana.aciri.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Dec 14, 2000 at 11:05:52PM -0800, Luigi Rizzo wrote: > > The problem with the "just let it be a router" approach is that I > > want all traffic from B to go to A and C, not just that which is > > actually intended for said net (yes all can be considered nets). > > the thing is, i do not see much point for doing this (there would > be no receivers on the 'wrong' segment), so it would be easier for me to > understand what you have in mind if you describe the reason you want > to do this. It is to simulate a problem similar to the hidden node problem in wireless LAN. This is a lab situation, not one where we want a "good" network design. You could similarly consider the problem as similar to arbitrary monitoring, port replication, span port, etc. > > specific denies, e.g.: > > deny from A via ifC > > instead of > > deny from A to C > > > > I still get confused with via. > > 'via' does not work well with bridged packets, as ipfw has no > info on the output interface (as there can be more than one, essentially, > and ipfw is invoked only once and _before_ the output if is selected). Ah, yes, I see that now. Hmmm ... that does make it a poser. -- Clark K. Gaylord Blacksburg, Virginia USA cgaylord@vt.edu To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20001215133331.E84586>