From owner-freebsd-emulation Sun Aug 6 23: 9:53 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-emulation@freebsd.org Received: from quack.kfu.com (quack.kfu.com [205.178.90.194]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C7D137BE04; Sun, 6 Aug 2000 23:09:50 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nsayer@quack.kfu.com) Received: from medusa.kfu.com (medusa.kfu.com [205.178.90.222]) by quack.kfu.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA89667; Sun, 6 Aug 2000 23:09:48 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nsayer@quack.kfu.com) Received: from icarus.kfu.com (ssmail@localhost) by medusa.kfu.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) with ESMTP id XAA15749; Sun, 6 Aug 2000 23:09:48 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nsayer@quack.kfu.com) X-Authentication-Warning: medusa.kfu.com: ssmail owned process doing -bs Received: from quack.kfu.com by icarus.kfu.com with ESMTP (8.9.3//ident-1.0) id XAA00622; Sun, 6 Aug 2000 23:09:47 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <398E52AB.5CAA967B@quack.kfu.com> Date: Sun, 06 Aug 2000 23:09:47 -0700 From: Nick Sayer X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.12 i386) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bill Fumerola Cc: Robert Watson , freebsd-emulation@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: vmware changes result in nasty bridging mess References: <398E0DC8.745E02F9@quack.kfu.com> <20000806224528.H95620@jade.chc-chimes.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-emulation@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Bill Fumerola wrote: > > On Sun, Aug 06, 2000 at 06:15:52PM -0700, Nick Sayer wrote: > > > I think you're overreacting slightly. > > I don't think he is. > > > 1. You are probably the only person on the planet who has a machine with both > > bridging and vmware who (aparently) doesn't intend to bridge the guest > > onto the connected LAN. This means that you have an opportunity to customize > > the startup script rather than insist that everyone have it the way you like > > it. > > That's nice. If I didn't turn bridging on, I don't want it on. Then edit the script and turn it off rather than insisting that the whole world do it the way you like it. > > I've been doing lots of recent ipfw testing recently and have compiled kernels with > many different options that I have no intention of using just so I can test them > as needed. I don't want some port turning them on by default. Lots of people > just compile a kitchen sink kernel with all the firewalling options KNOWING that > they can turn them on when they want them. > > > 3. POLA in this case is the opposite of what you think it is. People who > > configure their kernels for bridging when they install vmware expect it to work > > when they fire up the guest. They would be astonished if it didn't. People > > bringing up vmware without bridging turned on would not see the behaviour you > > castigate. I believe that everyone running vmware is in one set or the other. Except > > you. > > I was astonished when I heard that vmware2 turned on bridgeing if it > could find it. I am astonished that it is causing you such mental trauma. > > On a side note, if I was a {ports ,}security officer, I would have already either > commented out the offending lines or marked the port FORBIDDEN. Then we have a difference of opinion. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-emulation" in the body of the message