From owner-freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Oct 25 17:50:35 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-bugs@hub.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A2FE16A4CE for ; Mon, 25 Oct 2004 17:50:35 +0000 (GMT) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [216.136.204.21]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D82743D39 for ; Mon, 25 Oct 2004 17:50:35 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (gnats@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i9PHoZcj029515 for ; Mon, 25 Oct 2004 17:50:35 GMT (envelope-from gnats@freefall.freebsd.org) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.12.11/8.12.11/Submit) id i9PHoZo7029514; Mon, 25 Oct 2004 17:50:35 GMT (envelope-from gnats) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 17:50:35 GMT Message-Id: <200410251750.i9PHoZo7029514@freefall.freebsd.org> To: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org From: Vladimir Ivanov Subject: Re: kern/73129: IPFW misbehaviour in RELENG_5 X-BeenThere: freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: Vladimir Ivanov List-Id: Bug reports List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 17:50:35 -0000 The following reply was made to PR kern/73129; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Vladimir Ivanov To: Maxim Konovalov Cc: bug-followup@freebsd.org Subject: Re: kern/73129: IPFW misbehaviour in RELENG_5 Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 21:41:23 +0400 Maxim Konovalov wrote: >Haven't checked the code yet but this PR sounds similar to kern/71910. >Could you please check the patch in kern/71910 solves your problem? >TIA. > > > They've got trouble with locally originated traffic that's why they've removed in_localip(srcip) check. I've got problem with intercepting traffic which flows to directly connected subnet (ip_localaddr(dstip) check). The idea of this strange "if" operator is absolutly unclear for me. The only meaning which I can see: "disable forwarding traffic which are either locally originated or originally has been directed to connected subnets". I can't understand why. That's why I've removed both checks. But I still suppose there were some reason to write this code.