From owner-freebsd-ipfw Thu May 30 2:58:48 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org Received: from c015.snv.cp.net (h003.c015.snv.cp.net [209.228.35.118]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 8D29D37B400 for ; Thu, 30 May 2002 02:58:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: (cpmta 19538 invoked from network); 30 May 2002 02:58:44 -0700 Date: 30 May 2002 02:58:44 -0700 Message-ID: <20020530095844.19537.cpmta@c015.snv.cp.net> X-Sent: 30 May 2002 09:58:44 GMT Received: from [65.69.2.157] by mail.compgeek.com with HTTP; 30 May 2002 02:58:44 PDT Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Mime-Version: 1.0 To: artem@mipk-kspu.kharkov.ua From: Jon Noack Cc: freebsd-ipfw@FreeBSD.ORG X-Mailer: Web Mail 3.9.3.11 Subject: Re: peer-to-peer asymmetric simulation X-Sent-From: noackjr@compgeek.com Sender: owner-freebsd-ipfw@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > The difference is in that the routed packet can pass through ipgw(!) > twice or once, and bridged only once, but through whole IPFW rule table. The way I read it is that net.inet.ip.fw.one_pass would have no effect in a bridged configuration -- there would always be a single pass regardless. Or is this wrong? Jon To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ipfw" in the body of the message