Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 01:26:23 -0700 (PDT) From: "Julian Elischer" <julian@elischer.org> To: "Donatas" <donatas@lrtc.net> Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org, Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> Subject: Re: routing problem (with corrected scheme) Message-ID: <3604.216.240.32.1.1125476783.squirrel@smirk.idiom.com> In-Reply-To: <004001c5ac59$eda111b0$9f90a8c0@donatas> References: <026001c59e7a$c6ca69c0$9f90a8c0@donatas> <42FBC0AE.8020803@elischer.org> <027701c59f02$0eb808a0$9f90a8c0@donatas> <42FCF148.5010400@elischer.org> <000d01c5a223$53799840$0500a8c0@donatas> <4306C04B.4010008@elischer.org> <004001c5ac59$eda111b0$9f90a8c0@donatas>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Good morning,
> after comprehensive tests I am glad to inform that your suggestions works
> just fine, so - thanks for help solving our problem.
>
> Truth, i've got one question realated to the exampel rule below:
>>ipfw add 1000 fwd ip4 ip from any to any out recv em0 xmit vlan{mumble}
>
> After several tests i have recognized that localy generated packets (like
> icmp traffic) never matches this rule. The problem is in "xmit
> vlan{number}" part. Is it so because of different place of packet input?
> Transit packets come to firewall from ether_demux and passes the rule,
> while localy generated packets come to firewall from ip_input and fails
locally generated packets do not match recv em0
> this rule? Using "pass" instead of "fwd" results in the same.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Julian Elischer" <julian@elischer.org>
> To: "Donatas" <donatas@lrtc.net>
> Sent: Saturday, August 20, 2005 8:31 AM
> Subject: Re: routing problem (with corrected scheme)
>
>
>> did my sugestion work?
>>
>
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3604.216.240.32.1.1125476783.squirrel>