Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 09:02:15 -0600 (CST) From: Nick Rogness <nick@rogness.net> To: Ruslan Ermilov <ru@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: net@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: natd divert injecting clarifications Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0103160842070.9691-100000@cody.jharris.com> In-Reply-To: <20010316095627.C62097@sunbay.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 16 Mar 2001, Ruslan Ermilov wrote: > Pretty much correct. > > 1) kernel sends packet to divert socket > 2) natd reads from divert socket > 3) natd screws with it > 4) natd writes the packet to divert socket; the packet > is treated as a completely new entity > 5) divert socket's output routine reinjects the packet > back "into the normal kernel IP packet processing", not into > firewall Hmm. You pass it a 'tag' which, I thought, is the ipfw rule number of the firewall after which rule processing should restart. I think I understand your point though. > > <PS> > Such questions are best answered on -net > </PS> I sent it to freebsd-ipfw and waited for a day before sending this to hackers. I send lots of email to -net and rarely receive anything back. I wonder if people just skip over it or what? The only list were I can get (at least) a response is -hackers. It is very frustrating finding answers sometimes. Especially when I just need a clarification on something that most programmer's think 'duh stupid'. Anyway, Thanks for the reply...I appreciate it. [Sorry for the rant]. Nick Rogness <nick@rogness.net> - Keep on routing in a Free World... "FreeBSD: The Power to Serve!" 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?Pine.BSF.4.21.0103160842070.9691-100000>