From owner-freebsd-hackers Thu Mar 2 05:50:01 1995 Return-Path: hackers-owner Received: (from majordom@localhost) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.9/8.6.6) id FAA16538 for hackers-outgoing; Thu, 2 Mar 1995 05:50:01 -0800 Received: from eel.dataplex.net (EEL.DATAPLEX.NET [199.183.109.245]) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.9/8.6.6) with ESMTP id FAA16526 for ; Thu, 2 Mar 1995 05:49:59 -0800 Received: from [199.183.109.242] (cod [199.183.109.242]) by eel.dataplex.net (8.6.10/8.6.9) with SMTP id HAA01177; Thu, 2 Mar 1995 07:46:17 -0600 X-Sender: wacky@shark.dataplex.net Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 2 Mar 1995 07:46:32 -0600 To: Luigi Rizzo From: rkw@dataplex.net (Richard Wackerbarth) Subject: Re: Playing with ipfw... Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.org, ugen@netvision.net.il Sender: hackers-owner@FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk Luigi Rizzo writes: >I have been playing with ipfw lately. >[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 ? perhaps the external language could accept "ipfw addf accept udp between 0/0 520 and 0/0" and expand it into the two non-symetrical rules. ---- Richard Wackerbarth rkw@dataplex.net