From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Sep 13 19:01:39 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6AAA16A4CE for ; Mon, 13 Sep 2004 19:01:39 +0000 (GMT) Received: from c00l3r.networx.ch (c00l3r.networx.ch [62.48.2.2]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0F2743D6A for ; Mon, 13 Sep 2004 19:01:38 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from andre@freebsd.org) Received: (qmail 85515 invoked from network); 13 Sep 2004 18:57:13 -0000 Received: from dotat.atdotat.at (HELO [62.48.0.47]) ([62.48.0.47]) (envelope-sender ) by c00l3r.networx.ch (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 13 Sep 2004 18:57:13 -0000 Message-ID: <4145EE92.2060802@freebsd.org> Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 21:01:38 +0200 From: Andre Oppermann User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.8a1) Gecko/20040520 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ruslan Ermilov References: <4145D02C.D02A18A0@freebsd.org> <20040913183038.GA25795@ip.net.ua> <4145EA7C.3000902@freebsd.org> <20040913185452.GB25795@ip.net.ua> In-Reply-To: <20040913185452.GB25795@ip.net.ua> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: ipfw tee fixed [cvs commit: src/sbin/ipfw ipfw.8src/sys/netinet ip_fw_pfil.c] X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 19:01:39 -0000 Ruslan Ermilov wrote: > On Mon, Sep 13, 2004 at 08:44:12PM +0200, Andre Oppermann wrote: > >>Ruslan Ermilov wrote: >> >>>On Mon, Sep 13, 2004 at 06:51:56PM +0200, Andre Oppermann wrote: >>> >>> >>>>I've fixed 'ipfw tee' in 6-current. Please try it and report back. This >>>>is pretty useful for passive packet monitoring. >>>> >>> >>>Just to make it crystal clear for everyone, the tee'd fragments are >>>still reassembled into a full packet before the diversion, correct? >> >>No, they are not. Only diverted packets are reassembled, tee'd packet >>are not. >> > > Then at least the divert(4) manpage should be updated to document the > difference in behavior (between "divert" and "tee"). Under BUGS the ipfw(8) man page now says only 'divert' will reassemble the packet. The old version said both do it. So I've changed that and removed 'tee' from it. Other than that there is no reference to this (non-)behaviour anywhere in that man page. -- Andre