From owner-freebsd-stable  Sun Sep 20 03:50:23 1998
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id DAA00258
          for freebsd-stable-outgoing; Sun, 20 Sep 1998 03:50:23 -0700 (PDT)
          (envelope-from owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG)
Received: from labinfo.iet.unipi.it (labinfo.iet.unipi.it [131.114.9.5])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id DAA29957
          for <stable@FreeBSD.ORG>; Sun, 20 Sep 1998 03:49:59 -0700 (PDT)
          (envelope-from luigi@labinfo.iet.unipi.it)
Received: from localhost (luigi@localhost) by labinfo.iet.unipi.it (8.6.5/8.6.5) id LAA29934; Sun, 20 Sep 1998 11:00:08 +0200
From: Luigi Rizzo <luigi@labinfo.iet.unipi.it>
Message-Id: <199809200900.LAA29934@labinfo.iet.unipi.it>
Subject: Re: is NATD / IPFW broke?
To: Studded@dal.net (Studded)
Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1998 11:00:08 +0200 (MET DST)
Cc: stable@FreeBSD.ORG
In-Reply-To: <3604DB82.418834FA@dal.net> from "Studded" at Sep 20, 98 03:39:43 am
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23]
Content-Type: text
Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

> 	While you're at it, IPFW on my fully up to date -Stable system is not
> logging all the packets it should be. I haven't found a pattern to the
> ones it doesn't log. This is with a configuration that's always worked
> in the past.

what do you expect me to do with this kind of bug report ?
it is too vague to let me do anything... i need at least one case to
reproduce the problem.

(there _is_ in fact one subtle diffetence, that i am fixing, in the
ipfw behaviour: if you SKIPTO a non existant rule, the default
behaviour was to go to the next one whereas with my mods i jump to the
default rule. I used an == instead of >= in one test...)

are you hitting that case by chance ?

	cheers
	luigi


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message