Date: 05 Oct 1999 18:07:37 -0400 From: Kevin Street <street@iname.com> To: Jenkins.Mike@epamail.epa.gov Cc: dnelson@emsphone.com, ru@ucb.crimea.ua, questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: ipfw and ports > 1023? Message-ID: <871zb91mxi.fsf@mired.eh.local> In-Reply-To: Jenkins.Mike@epamail.epa.gov's message of "Tue, 05 Oct 1999 14:06:10 -0500" References: <85256801.006877BD.00@EPAHUB2.RTP.EPA.GOV>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Jenkins.Mike@epamail.epa.gov writes: > My second sentence in the original post hinted about this but ... > In the ipfw(8) manual page it says: > > "A range may only be specified as the first value, and the length > of the port list is limited to IP_FW_MAX_PORTS (as defined > in /usr/src/sys/netinet/ip_fw.h) ports." > > IP_FW_MAX_PORTS is 10 so the maximum number of ports listed is 10. > So 20-29 would be ok (and so would 20-24,50,60,70,80,90) but 1024-65535 > is NOT ok and probably results in 1024-1033. Did you try it? It does not do this. 1024-65535 works. IP_FW_MAX_PORTS only affects the number of things you can specify on the ipfw command line, not the size of the range. >I think the intent is to allow a small number > of ports on a single rule rather than having multiple rules. Eg: right -- Kevin Street street@iname.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?871zb91mxi.fsf>