Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2010 09:13:09 +0800 From: Adrian Chadd <adrian@ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> To: Julian Elischer <julian@freebsd.org> Cc: Brandon Gooch <jamesbrandongooch@gmail.com>, Eduardo Meyer <dudu.meyer@gmail.com>, ipfw@freebsd.org Subject: Re: layer2 ipfw 'fwd' support Message-ID: <20101005011308.GC28280@ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> In-Reply-To: <4CAA1E7B.1020107@freebsd.org> References: <AANLkTi=wHkmfDmoPrKN1SRcE9m=1_5iieAd85hQNWHs1@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTinj8wd9AbROwRzUAUK=XraYmTDkoB3MGddqq-Tn@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTin1vXOMPT6m8ybhNQk9G7WjDrCcSArP3Zwf65cR@mail.gmail.com> <4CAA1E7B.1020107@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Oct 04, 2010, Julian Elischer wrote: >>> -Brandon >> Yes, its still required since ipfw fwd ignores layer2 frames. >> >> The application is the very same: squid. I mean, Lusca in fact (squid fork). >> >> Thank you for your interest. > > Cisco/Ironport have a patch that does this.. > I had permission to bring it back when I worked there but never got it > committed. > > Adrian, was it part of the set I gave you? I don't recall; but I'm happy to look at merging it into -head. I was more after L3 interception than L2 interception. Adrian
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20101005011308.GC28280>