From owner-freebsd-bugs Tue Sep 25 10:19:25 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (critter.freebsd.dk [212.242.86.163]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 991C037B406; Tue, 25 Sep 2001 10:16:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from critter (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by critter.freebsd.dk (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id f8PHEmv31666; Tue, 25 Sep 2001 19:14:49 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from phk@critter.freebsd.dk) To: ru@FreeBSD.ORG Cc: fj@batmule.dk, freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: misc/30255: [PATCH] Packets reinjected by natd but denied by ipfw generates annoying errors In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 25 Sep 2001 07:27:19 PDT." <200109251427.f8PERJL37187@freefall.freebsd.org> Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 19:14:48 +0200 Message-ID: <31664.1001438088@critter> From: Poul-Henning Kamp Sender: owner-freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org >State-Changed-From-To: open->closed >State-Changed-By: ru >State-Changed-When: Tue Sep 25 07:24:17 PDT 2001 >State-Changed-Why: >With my MAINTAINER hat on, I don't like this option. > >This error usually indicates a misconfigured firewall. >It is almost always possible to write firewall rules >that do not result in EACCES from firewall. I think you're being too harsh here Ruslan. While it may theoretically be possible to write such rules, I have myself often found it simpler and faster to reject on the "backside" of natd. Considering what is proposed is an option I think it should be committed. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-bugs" in the body of the message