Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 10:39:06 -0600 (MDT) From: Nate Williams <nate@yogotech.com> To: Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@ofug.org> Cc: nate@yogotech.com (Nate Williams), Michael Sharp <msharp@medmail.com>, FreeBSD-security@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: ipfw Message-ID: <15098.50218.467751.103251@nomad.yogotech.com> In-Reply-To: <xzpy9s5k1eo.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no> References: <20010509200335.7680.cpmta@c000.sfo.cp.net> <15097.44366.138725.618271@nomad.yogotech.com> <xzpy9s5k1eo.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > Not true. Rules are processed in order, and if you don't give a rule > > number I don't know the order that a rule is inserted on the list. > > The new rule is inserted at highest existing rule number (except > 65535) + 100. Ahh, this explains why the new rules aren't being seen (because of rule 65000). I would have thought the rules would have been added to the 'top' of the ruleset. Nate To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?15098.50218.467751.103251>