Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 06:20:10 -0800 From: Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@icir.org> To: Andre Oppermann <andre@freebsd.org>, freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: per-interface packet filters, design approach Message-ID: <20041214062010.A77933@xorpc.icir.org> In-Reply-To: <20041214141307.GA684@empiric.icir.org>; from bms@spc.org on Tue, Dec 14, 2004 at 06:13:07AM -0800 References: <41BEF2AF.470F9079@freebsd.org> <20041214141307.GA684@empiric.icir.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Dec 14, 2004 at 06:13:07AM -0800, Bruce M Simpson wrote: ... > What I'm really missing in IPFW is the ability to maintain one or more > 'shadow rulesets'. These rulesets may not be the active rulesets, but > I can manipulate them as tables, independently of the active ruleset(s), ??? What what ??? They do exist, they are called 'set' and you can associate rules to a specific set, atomically enable/disable/swap/rename sets, etc. This was designed exactly for this purpose (atomic updates of firewall configuration with a single syscall). have a look at the ipfw manpage and then see if it answer your needs. cheers luigi > IPF and PF have such functionality, IPFW does not. The lack of a documented > ABI/API for access to IPFW by applications other than ipfw(8) is something > which I'm leaving out of the picture for the moment. > I don't really consider using 'skipto' and separate sections of rule > index number space a valid answer here, because we should have the ability > to independently flush each ruleset. > > When extended to stateful rules (I am talking here purely about the simple > stateless packet filter case), this comes in even more useful. > > Regards, > BMS
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20041214062010.A77933>