From owner-freebsd-ipfw@FreeBSD.ORG  Tue Mar 17 17:02:08 2009
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-ipfw@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D921106567E
	for <freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org>; Tue, 17 Mar 2009 17:02:08 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from steve@ibctech.ca)
Received: from cohiba.eagle.ca (cohiba.eagle.ca [208.70.104.203])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B19338FC1A
	for <freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org>; Tue, 17 Mar 2009 17:02:07 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from steve@ibctech.ca)
Received: (qmail 46154 invoked by uid 89); 17 Mar 2009 16:35:26 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO ?192.168.1.114?) (steveb@eagle.ca@208.70.104.100)
	by cohiba.eagle.ca with ESMTPA; 17 Mar 2009 16:35:26 -0000
Message-ID: <49BFD13F.8000608@ibctech.ca>
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 12:35:11 -0400
From: Steve Bertrand <steve@ibctech.ca>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (Windows/20080914)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.7
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [Fwd: uRPF]
X-BeenThere: freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IPFW Technical Discussions <freebsd-ipfw.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ipfw>,
	<mailto:freebsd-ipfw-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ipfw>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-ipfw-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ipfw>,
	<mailto:freebsd-ipfw-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 17:02:08 -0000

[ I tried this over at -net, but with no response, thought I'd try here]

Hi everyone,

I've implemented RTBH within our network, but I have one small issue.

I've got one FreeBSD/Quagga edge router that has an interface which
contains a default route out. Although this will change in the next
while, at this time, it is preventing me from doing reverse path check,
thereby breaking source-based black-holing.

It appears to me that IPFW's verrevpath (and it's kin) do not provide
the ability to perform the RPF check and allow default.

Have there been any advancements in this regard? Am I missing something,
or is there another approach to allowing default with reverse path?

Regards,

Steve
_______________________________________________
freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"