Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 21:34:04 -0700 From: Jeremy Chadwick <freebsd@jdc.parodius.com> To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: BIND-8/9 interface bug? Or is it FreeBSD? Message-ID: <20030419043404.GA7069@parodius.com> In-Reply-To: <20030419043055.GA31406@pit.databus.com> References: <20030418174956.GA71335@parodius.com> <20030418200936.82331.qmail@web10410.mail.yahoo.com> <20030418201645.GA77986@parodius.com> <20030418220229.GB39466@blossom.cjclark.org> <20030418235214.GB85777@parodius.com> <20030419043055.GA31406@pit.databus.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Ah, you're right -- I definitely skipped over the "outgoing"
phrase in Crist's note. My apologies.
I'll try taking a look at the interface without the outgoing
ipfw blocks in place, and report back. I'm starting to wonder
if it's NOTIFY traffic...
--
| Jeremy Chadwick jdc@parodius.com |
| Parodius Networking http://www.parodius.com/ |
| UNIX Systems Administrator Mountain View, CA, USA |
| Making life hard for others since 1977. |
On Sat, Apr 19, 2003 at 12:30:55AM -0400, Barney Wolff wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 18, 2003 at 04:52:14PM -0700, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
> > Since when? :-) That wouldn't make very much sense, and
> > would be extremely misleading for network administrators.
> > bpf should have the highest priority, well above ipfw.
> >
> > I just verified that fact with a test: blocking any telnet I/O
> > across my public interface and telnetting in from my home
> > workstation:
>
> You didn't listen to the answer: bpf is closer to the driver than ipfw,
> so it will see inbound packets that ipfw will block, but not see outbound
> packets that ipfw has already blocked.
>
> --
> Barney Wolff http://www.databus.com/bwresume.pdf
> I'm available by contract or FT, in the NYC metro area or via the 'Net.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030419043404.GA7069>