From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG  Fri Oct 11 03:55:39 2013
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115])
 (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04155AF3
 for <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 03:55:39 +0000 (UTC)
 (envelope-from chrisstankevitz@gmail.com)
Received: from mail-ie0-x231.google.com (mail-ie0-x231.google.com
 [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c03::231])
 (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CC71D2384
 for <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 03:55:38 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-ie0-f177.google.com with SMTP id e14so3610471iej.8
 for <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>; Thu, 10 Oct 2013 20:55:37 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
 h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
 :content-type; bh=7+sIcv3LHsv8Z+SFuDBSRVWbQ+OAseZsxM540zy2S60=;
 b=ZxaD7tRuHtuNSjnZnlADPKUIhIDTFVV6jvrJ7aHcJ35F6RYARTkX76sN22tj5ZOmZT
 P05pgvkCy9AFug6IzRfoH0v1o9C/zgqsJqIlNiEeXipzh4C+DSc6ou6coUVLp0GP/rxu
 sX9H0T01wtegdj9SiegG/WQfXNt3SyYv5RmfbcZy3j10K+pmZj9d3mnUpblWC0G+NM7Y
 fksMHBEhApchlpyVpfpXF2FEcp4p26j8dh0nX2rwIW9/gdGTCcNbjvV9apvbwf345PXc
 KhzdPlK6K88Hs16W+hsONEZo58lj3KbpO2lGs1X7XykJJJ72Dp3/RgyXw425njJLmNTJ
 wkMw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.132.37 with SMTP id or5mr398800igb.45.1381463737506; Thu,
 10 Oct 2013 20:55:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.42.139.6 with HTTP; Thu, 10 Oct 2013 20:55:37 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <op.w4rs0bh0g7njmm@michael-think>
References: <CAPi0psuTj8YVhMve-qNsGcAEB9BLYH-fzA7=gmBpgfg+W5DdrA@mail.gmail.com>
 <op.w4rs0bh0g7njmm@michael-think>
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 20:55:37 -0700
Message-ID: <CAPi0pssf_6dTha1rhwtoCPfwNnmNNaUZCJVPbtPrfj2wYW5Jrw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: NATD: net.inet.ip.fw.default_to_accept="1" vs firewall_type="OPEN"
From: Chris Stankevitz <chrisstankevitz@gmail.com>
To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14
Precedence: list
List-Id: User questions <freebsd-questions.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-questions>, 
 <mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions>, 
 <mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 03:55:39 -0000

On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 8:22 PM, Michael Ross <gmx@ross.cx> wrote:
> ipfw always has one default rule, standard is
>
> [snip]
>
> Specifing firewall_type="OPEN" gives you an additional rule


Michael,

Thank you that is exactly what I am seeing.

Chris