Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2003 00:30:55 -0400 From: Barney Wolff <barney@pit.databus.com> To: Jeremy Chadwick <freebsd@jdc.parodius.com> Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: BIND-8/9 interface bug? Or is it FreeBSD? Message-ID: <20030419043055.GA31406@pit.databus.com> In-Reply-To: <20030418235214.GB85777@parodius.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>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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?20030419043055.GA31406>