From owner-freebsd-questions  Mon Feb 12 13:13:56 2001
Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Received: from silver.teardrop.org (silver.teardrop.org [205.181.101.128])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD64D37B491
	for <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 13:13:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from snow@localhost)
	by silver.teardrop.org (8.11.1/8.11.1) id f1CLDor38489
	for freebsd-questions@freebsd.org; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 16:13:50 -0500 (EST)
	(envelope-from snow@teardrop.org)
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 16:13:50 -0500
From: James Snow <snow@teardrop.org>
To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject: ARP, bridging, and ipfw
Message-ID: <20010212161340.A38417@teardrop.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i
Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG


I'm experimenting with using a FreeBSD box as a transparent firewall.
Looking at /etc/rc.firewall, I see:

# If you're using 'options BRIDGE', uncomment the following line to pass ARP
#${fwcmd} add 300 pass udp from 0.0.0.0 2054 to 0.0.0.0

I found it curious that I'd had no problems with ARP before adding that
line to the rules I'm using, and that even after adding it as the first
rule in the list, it never matches, even after I flush my local ARP
cache and force some ARP requests.

Are these lines in /etc/rc.firewall deprecated? Do ARP packets get
excetped from the ipfw rules now or something?

Also, what on earth does ARP have to do with UDP sourced from port 2054?


Just curious,
-James


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