From owner-freebsd-hackers Wed Sep 23 00:37:46 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id AAA29716 for freebsd-hackers-outgoing; Wed, 23 Sep 1998 00:37:46 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from dt053nb4.san.rr.com (dt053nb4.san.rr.com [204.210.34.180]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id AAA29703 for ; Wed, 23 Sep 1998 00:37:38 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from Studded@dal.net) Received: from dal.net (Studded@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dt053nb4.san.rr.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id AAA02477; Wed, 23 Sep 1998 00:37:30 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from Studded@dal.net) Message-ID: <3608A539.B9BD103E@dal.net> Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 00:37:29 -0700 From: Studded Organization: Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Authority X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (X11; I; FreeBSD 2.2.7-STABLE-0920 i386) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Drew Baxter CC: rotel@indigo.ie, FreeBSD Hackers Subject: Re: Packet/traffic shapper ? References: <199809211827.OAA09675@Loki.orland.u91.k12.me.us> <199809230009.UAA11487@Loki.orland.u91.k12.me.us> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Drew Baxter wrote: > > At 12:49 AM 9/23/98 +0000, Niall Smart wrote: > > > >Personally I don't think IPFW_DEFAULT_TO_ACCEPT is a bad idea, once you > >are sure you have the accept rules necessary to ensure your connectivity > >to the host you can pop in a deny all rule. This will probably be slower > >than defaulting to deny though. > --- > Hm, isn't default_to_accept still affected by ipfw flush? No it's not, that's one of the reasons the option was added. Doug To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message