From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG  Tue Sep 26 07:33:48 2006
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG>
X-Original-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8ECB16A40F
	for <freebsd-net@freebsd.org>; Tue, 26 Sep 2006 07:33:48 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from danny@cs.huji.ac.il)
Received: from cs1.cs.huji.ac.il (cs1.cs.huji.ac.il [132.65.16.10])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 651D743D55
	for <freebsd-net@freebsd.org>; Tue, 26 Sep 2006 07:33:48 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from danny@cs.huji.ac.il)
Received: from pampa.cs.huji.ac.il ([132.65.80.32])
	by cs1.cs.huji.ac.il with esmtp id 1GS7Rr-0006b7-EH
	for freebsd-net@freebsd.org; Tue, 26 Sep 2006 10:33:47 +0300
X-Mailer: exmh version 2.7.2 01/07/2005 with nmh-1.2
To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 10:33:47 +0300
From: Danny Braniss <danny@cs.huji.ac.il>
Message-ID: <E1GS7Rr-0006b7-EH@cs1.cs.huji.ac.il>
Subject: IPMI & portrange
X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD <freebsd-net.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net>,
	<mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-net>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-net@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net>,
	<mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 07:33:48 -0000

Hi,
	This keeps bitting me every other upgrade, IPMI on some
hosts, if enabled, will steal packets to port 623 or 664, so
the current solution is either set net.inet.ip.portrange.lowlast
to 664, (for some reason this does not seem to work if done via
loader.conf) or change it in sys/netinet/in.h.

	So, is there some way to blacklist some ports, instead
of increasing portrange.lowlast?

	danny