Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sun, 02 Dec 2001 13:57:15 
From:      "Thor Legvold" <tlegvold@hotmail.com>
To:        friar_josh@webwarrior.net
Cc:        freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject:   Re: Firewall rules (ipfw)
Message-ID:  <F96pgDidPIOumPx3KoA0001e57b@hotmail.com>

next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Brother Josh wrote:

>Yes.  ipfw is a first match wins system.  The first rule that matches
>gets applied to the packet and the rest of the ruleset is skipped.
>

That's what I thought.

>My guess is that the deny log all from any to any via cable0 rule is
>killing packets before they ever make it to the divert rule.  You can

My reasoning as well.

>confirm this by looking at either the logs or the packet counters.
>Typically the divert nat rule is one of the first things in the
>ruleset.

Yep, I've seen this. My idea was to restrict the traffic to natd to gre 
packets only (as nothing else should be there - the dhcp and tcp control 
connect. for pptp is on the cable0 iface anyway and should never get to 
natd), giving nat less to do and making the rest of teh ruleset a bit 
simpler.

I suppose I could have two nat divert rules separating outgoing from 
incoming traffic, one allowing incoming on cable0 divcerting only gre (as 
all incoming to nat is gre by default) and one right after allowing all 
outgoing to go via natd, but I highly doubt that the system would allow 
that, if it did I doubt it would actually work (natd wpould probably get 
confused)

>Trying to be efficient is always a worthwhile endevor, and crafting

Thanks.

>rule sets that are as efficient as possible is a good thing (TM), but

Thanks.

>on the other hand, a 486 can easily do nat and ipfw for a cable modem,
>so I wouldn't lose too much sleep over it.

Ok, back to the easy way :-)  My link is more like a T1 speed (well, actualy 
it's 2Mb/sec) amd the FBSD server is a P3 450 with 128MB RAM, so I think it 
should be able to handle the traffic. I just figured that removing all 
non-gre traffic (at very least incoming) would both better security, improve 
nat/ipfw performance (lower the load) and simplify the ruleset following the 
nat translation.

>Josh

Regards,
Thor


_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?F96pgDidPIOumPx3KoA0001e57b>