From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Oct 19 15:17:44 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: net@freebsd.org Received: from mx2.freebsd.org (mx2.freebsd.org [69.147.83.53]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7959854; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 15:17:44 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from melifaro@FreeBSD.org) Received: from dhcp170-36-red.yandex.net (freefall.freebsd.org [8.8.178.135]) by mx2.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E46CB3B6660; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 15:17:41 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <50816ECE.4020002@FreeBSD.org> Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 19:16:30 +0400 From: "Alexander V. Chernikov" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:13.0) Gecko/20120627 Thunderbird/13.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andre Oppermann Subject: Re: [RFC] Enabling IPFIREWALL_FORWARD in run-time References: <508138A4.5030901@FreeBSD.org> <50814166.1000602@networx.ch> <50814523.2070002@FreeBSD.org> <50815E36.6010703@networx.ch> In-Reply-To: <50815E36.6010703@networx.ch> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "Andrey V. Elsukov" , ipfw@freebsd.org, net@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 15:17:44 -0000 On 19.10.2012 18:05, Andre Oppermann wrote: > On 19.10.2012 14:18, Andrey V. Elsukov wrote: >> On 19.10.2012 16:02, Andre Oppermann wrote:>> >> http://people.freebsd.org/~ae/pfil_forward.diff >>>> >>>> Also we have done some tests with the ixia traffic generator connected >>>> via 10G network adapter. Tests have show that there is no visible >>>> difference, and there is no visible performance degradation. >>>> >>>> Any objections? >>> >>> No objection as such. However I don't entirely agree with the >>> naming of pfil_forward. The functionality is specific to IPFW >>> and TCP, it's doing transparent interjected termination of tcp >>> connections on the local host while keeping the original IP >>> addresses and port numbers visible in netstat output. >>> >>> So it's a feature of IPFW/IP and should be fitted in there for >>> sysctl name and .h files instead of pfil. >> >> Actually it can be used not only by ipfw. We already have >> net.inet.ip.forwarding and net.inet6.ip6.forwarding variables, and >> placing it into net.inet.ip.fw is undesirable, because we can have >> kernel without ipfw. So, i decided to choose pfil, because it could not >> work without pfil. > > Again, it's not a property of pfil. It's a property of IP and it Not exactly. It is currently supported in both IPv4 and IPv6. > should live there from a configuration point of view. Other firewalls > than ipfw don't make use of it. > > You could rename it to transparent connection proxy or some such. fwd is widely used as policy-based routing, so it is not just upper-layer TCP feature. > -- WBR, Alexander