From owner-freebsd-ipfw Wed Oct 2 15:39:52 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B05237B401 for ; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 15:39:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from kalahari.flup.org (kalahari.flup.org [198.78.66.13]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3020A43E6E for ; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 15:39:47 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from allan@saddi.com) Received: from kalahari (kalahari [198.78.66.13]) by kalahari.flup.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D8F115A1E for ; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 15:39:42 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 15:39:41 -0700 (PDT) From: Allan Saddi X-X-Sender: asaddi@kalahari.flup.org To: freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org Subject: ipfw + ICMP_BANDLIM? Message-ID: <20021002152116.A12717-100000@kalahari.flup.org> Organization: Saddi Enterprises MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-ipfw@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Hi there, I was wondering if there was any reason why ipfw's reject/ unreach/reset rules were not subjected to any sort of rate limiting? (imposed by the ICMP_BANDLIM option) I made a small modification[1] to ip_fw.c (on a 4.6.2 system) to accomplish this. I want to bring these changes into production, but I first wanted to know if this omission was by design? (Perhaps the rate limiting is being done someplace else?) Thanks, Allan [1] http://www.saddi.com/allan/tmp/ipfw-bandlim.diff -- Allan Saddi "The Earth is the cradle of mankind, allan@saddi.com but we cannot live in the cradle http://www.saddi.com/allan/ forever." - K.E. Tsiolkovsky To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ipfw" in the body of the message