Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 22:30:20 -0800 From: "Crist J. Clark" <crist.clark@attbi.com> To: Gerhard Sittig <Gerhard.Sittig@gmx.net> Cc: stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ipfw2 vs ipfilter Message-ID: <20030128063020.GD42960@blossom.cjclark.org> In-Reply-To: <20030128005759.A4807@shell.gsinet.sittig.org> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030127143019.069e3380@marble.sentex.ca> <20030128005759.A4807@shell.gsinet.sittig.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 12:57:59AM +0100, Gerhard Sittig wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 27, 2003 at 15:56 -0500, Mike Tancsa wrote:
> >
> > Rule wise, I am happy with either, except I would really miss ipfw's
> > concept of 'me'. e.g. ipfw add 5000 deny log tcp from any to me 2604.
>
> You don't have to, in ipf speak the address "0.0.0.0/32" _is_ "me".
No, it is not. 0.0.0.0/32 has meaning in ipnat(8) rules, not ipf(8)
rules. And while we're at it the if0/32 syntax, where if0 is an
interface name, was a local OpenBSD hack until they ripped out
IPFilter.
--
Crist J. Clark | cjclark@alum.mit.edu
| cjclark@jhu.edu
http://people.freebsd.org/~cjc/ | cjc@freebsd.org
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030128063020.GD42960>