Date: Thu, 15 Aug 1996 11:34:56 +1000 (EST) From: "Daniel O'Callaghan" <danny@panda.hilink.com.au> To: Darren Reed <avalon@coombs.anu.edu.au> Cc: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ipfw vs ipfilter? Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.91.960815100530.6553F-100000@panda.hilink.com.au> In-Reply-To: <199608142350.JAA06711@panda.hilink.com.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 15 Aug 1996, Darren Reed wrote: > In some mail from Daniel O'Callaghan, sie said: > @23 pass in on ed0 proto tcp/udp from any to any port = 123 > > to insert a new rule at position 23 for the input list of filters. Yes, I just noticed a reference to this. > [...] > > but I *do* like Poul-Henning's rule numbers in ipfw. Any chance of > > having numbered rules, Darren? > > This reminds me of programming in BASIC, way back, when you needed to > use line numbers for GOTO's, etc, and eventually, you will run into > the same "problem" and need to renumber. I really don't see a win > from this feature. Well, yes, it is a bit like programming in BASIC, which is why I've spread the rule numbers out in my use of them. I guess my rule-generating perl script could use the rules themselves to match my reporting rules, rather than using rule numbers. Danny
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.91.960815100530.6553F-100000>