From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Mar 19 08:45:19 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-net@FreeBSD.org Delivered-To: freebsd-net@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F293216A401; Mon, 19 Mar 2007 08:45:18 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from Mark_Andrews@isc.org) Received: from mx.isc.org (mx.isc.org [204.152.184.167]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7D1513C457; Mon, 19 Mar 2007 08:45:18 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from Mark_Andrews@isc.org) Received: from farside.isc.org (farside.isc.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:3:bb::5]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "farside.isc.org", Issuer "ISC CA" (verified OK)) by mx.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B86AF11401C; Mon, 19 Mar 2007 07:55:54 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from Mark_Andrews@isc.org) Received: from drugs.dv.isc.org (localhost.isc.org [IPv6:::1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "drugs.dv.isc.org", Issuer "ISC CA" (verified OK)) by farside.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2293FE60D9; Mon, 19 Mar 2007 07:55:53 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from marka@isc.org) Received: from drugs.dv.isc.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by drugs.dv.isc.org (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id l2J7tnIB001548; Mon, 19 Mar 2007 18:55:50 +1100 (EST) (envelope-from marka@drugs.dv.isc.org) Message-Id: <200703190755.l2J7tnIB001548@drugs.dv.isc.org> To: Doug Barton From: Mark Andrews In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 18 Mar 2007 21:39:01 PDT." <45FE13E5.9060902@FreeBSD.org> Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 18:55:49 +1100 Sender: Mark_Andrews@isc.org Cc: freebsd-net@FreeBSD.org, Kian Mohageri , freebsd-rc@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: rc.order wrong (ipfw) X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 08:45:19 -0000 > Therefore I believe strongly that the default behavior should be > changed to load all firewalls (and rules) before netif, and that those > who want to do firewall-related things that require netif or routing > to be up should be the ones who have to opt in to the new script. That > said, I think you and I have expressed our opinions pretty clearly on > these points, so I'd suggest that we let someone else have a turn. > > Doug I concur with Doug. -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: Mark_Andrews@isc.org