Date: Thu, 2 Mar 95 14:24:48 IST From: "Ugen J.S.Antsilevich" <ugen@netvision.net.il> To: hackers@FreeBSD.org, Luigi Rizzo <luigi@labinfo.iet.unipi.it> Subject: RE: Playing with ipfw... Message-ID: <Chameleon.950302142908.ugen@ugen.NetManage.co.il>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> >[BUG] ipfw in its current form does not accept setting the destination > port. Looking at the code, it actually accepts the port, but after > expects a 'via' or something similar field. > Fixed in -current... > >[BUG] the program does not look for full keywords [from,to] when > parsing the string. Thus, if I say This was nice feature(any keyword was specified as it's first 1 or 2 letters so you could not type too much) but already "fixed" in -current >[COMMENT] Quite often, allowing a service requires a two-line > specification. As an example, I am using > > ipfw addf accept udp from 0/0 520 to 0/0 > ipfw addf accept udp from 0/0 to 0/0 520 > > to let routing information pass to hosts in the subnet. > > It would be nice to have a way to specify "one of the port > numbers must be XXX". Is this supported by the system calls ? Ok..this is by my definition "bidirectional",now accounting has this but in firewall it is in TODO ... -- -=Ugen J.S.Antsilevich=- NetVision - Israeli Commercial Internet | Learning E-mail: ugen@NetVision.net.il | To Fly. [c] Phone : +972-4-550330 |
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Chameleon.950302142908.ugen>