Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 03:48:11 -0000 From: Pyun YongHyeon <yongari@kt-is.co.kr> To: pf4freebsd@freelists.org Subject: [pf4freebsd] Re: Bridging? Message-ID: <20030829080440.GB12809@kt-is.co.kr> In-Reply-To: <20030829032218.GB11397@kt-is.co.kr> References: <200308262103.12394.alan@precisionautobody.com> <200308262247.46254.alan@precisionautobody.com> <01a901c36cee$09bd6810$01000001@max900> <200308271625.05235.alan@precisionautobody.com> <025801c36cfa$3e756290$01000001@max900> <1062074062.31217.14.camel@quark.avioc.org> <20030829032218.GB11397@kt-is.co.kr>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Aug 29, 2003 at 12:22:18PM +0900, To pf4freebsd@freelists.org wrote: > On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 08:15:45AM -0500, Brandon Weisz wrote: > > Max, > > I tested your patch with basically the same setup as Alan. I'm using > > the pf port, not sure if I should be testing with 1.62. > > > If your system is -current you should use latest version > (not in ports tree). > > > The quick and dirty is I didn't see any of the debug messages from > > bridge.c.diff in the dmesg. > > > The debugging message may show up on your CONSOLE. If you do not > see any messages such as 'START, TRUE, calling' on your console, > it means pf does not work on bridge setup. However I don't think > so because bridge code supports PFIL_HOOKS and ipfilter also > relys on this feature.(But I can't sure 'cause I don't even use > bridge at all.) > I have tried bridge(4) with kernel module on -current. No luck. I can't believe this so I have tried ipf. It did not work too. There must be a bug in bridge(4) code itself. At present it seems that there is no way to use pf or ipf (which uses PFIL_HOOK) on bridge setup with/without assigning a IP address. Is there anyone using ipf on bridge setup? Regards, Pyun YongHyeon -- Pyun YongHyeon <http://www.kr.freebsd.org/~yongari>; KTIS, Inc. +82-2-597-0600
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030829080440.GB12809>