From owner-freebsd-ipfw@FreeBSD.ORG  Fri Aug  1 08:44:45 2003
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-ipfw@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2753337B401
	for <freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org>; Fri,  1 Aug 2003 08:44:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from laptop.tenebras.com (laptop.tenebras.com [66.92.188.18])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 87ED343FD7
	for <freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org>; Fri,  1 Aug 2003 08:44:44 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from kudzu@tenebras.com)
Received: (qmail 58941 invoked from network); 1 Aug 2003 15:44:43 -0000
Received: from sapphire.tenebras.com (HELO tenebras.com) (192.168.188.241)
  by 0 with SMTP; 1 Aug 2003 15:44:43 -0000
Message-ID: <3F2A8AEB.10603@tenebras.com>
Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2003 08:44:43 -0700
From: Michael Sierchio <kudzu@tenebras.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i386; en-US; rv:1.3.1) Gecko/20030425
X-Accept-Language: en-us, zh-tw, zh-cn, fr, en, de-de
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Sten_Daniel_S=F8rsdal?= <sten.daniel.sorsdal@wan.no>
References: <0AF1BBDF1218F14E9B4CCE414744E70F07DEFF@exchange.wanglobal.net>
In-Reply-To: <0AF1BBDF1218F14E9B4CCE414744E70F07DEFF@exchange.wanglobal.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
cc: freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Suggestion regarding a new option for IPFW2
X-BeenThere: freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: IPFW Technical Discussions <freebsd-ipfw.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ipfw>,
	<mailto:freebsd-ipfw-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ipfw>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-ipfw-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ipfw>,
	<mailto:freebsd-ipfw-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2003 15:44:45 -0000

Sten Daniel Sørsdal wrote:

> are you by any chance using NAT? if you are, then the firewall
> does not need masking (it already has the public ip and this option
> would be of little/no use).
> if not, then you still have the issue of firewalls presence being 
> easily spotted.
> 
> Thank you for your comments!

I can see value in using a firewall in bridging mode, in which
case sending ICMP messages might use an alias address not associated
with any interface -- if there are no IP addrs on the external interface,
for example.