Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Thu, 25 Jul 2002 02:35:10 -0700
From:      Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@icir.org>
To:        Marc Olzheim <marcolz@stack.nl>
Cc:        ipfw@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject:   Re: RFC: ipfw behaviour with non IPv4 packets
Message-ID:  <20020725023510.A96102@iguana.icir.org>
In-Reply-To: <20020725090636.GA39394@stack.nl>; from marcolz@stack.nl on Thu, Jul 25, 2002 at 11:06:36AM %2B0200
References:  <20020725001652.A94913@iguana.icir.org> <20020725090636.GA39394@stack.nl>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Jul 25, 2002 at 11:06:36AM +0200, Marc Olzheim wrote:
> > I am a bit uncertain on what is the best path, but i believe a   
> > reasonable one is to assume
> > 
> >         "ip" = "any" --> any IP packet (v4 or v6) 
> > 
> > and similarly
> > 
> >         "proto" --> any packet of protocol "proto" over IP (v4 or v6)
> > 
> > Comments ?
> 
> Wouldn't that break backward compatibility with IPFW1 ?

on one hand, yes.
on the other hand, ipfw1 is not supposed to see
anything else but ipv4 packets

in my view this gives us a reasonable amount of backward
compatibility, and we can even provide switches (sysctl
i would say) to achieve even stricter ipfw1 compatibility.

in any case, i do not care too much -- i have no strong
interest in v6 so either way is fine with me.

	cheers
	luigi

To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-ipfw" in the body of the message




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020725023510.A96102>