Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2016 22:54:01 +0800 From: Julian Elischer <julian@freebsd.org> To: "Andrey V. Elsukov" <ae@FreeBSD.org>, wishmaster <artemrts@ukr.net>, freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org Subject: Re: IPFW: more "orthogonal? state operations, push into 11? Message-ID: <b2cb487b-0ef7-cb69-dbc7-96b0240fa6b8@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <57567F14.1040201@FreeBSD.org> References: <9229d4f7-8466-57b0-c954-117736102bd7@FreeBSD.org> <5755F0D3.9060909@FreeBSD.org> <1465278589.404683707.3wv9pnhq@frv34.fwdcdn.com> <57567F14.1040201@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 7/06/2016 4:00 PM, Andrey V. Elsukov wrote: > On 07.06.16 09:31, wishmaster wrote: >>> With the following patch you will be able create two different states, I >>> think, and solve your task with NAT and dynamic rules: >>> https://reviews.freebsd.org/D6674 >> Will there be the patch in the 11-RELEASE? > Hi, > > there are three patches for ipfw, that I want to commit: > https://reviews.freebsd.org/D6420 > https://reviews.freebsd.org/D6434 > https://reviews.freebsd.org/D6674 > > But we are in code slush and there aren't any positive review yet. So, I > guess they will be committed only after 11.0 would be branched. > 6674 would be good to have.. I;ve given it a +1 The feature I want from Lev's change is the ability to store a state entry without the implicit check-state.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?b2cb487b-0ef7-cb69-dbc7-96b0240fa6b8>