Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 21:01:38 +0200 From: Andre Oppermann <andre@freebsd.org> To: Ruslan Ermilov <ru@FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: ipfw tee fixed [cvs commit: src/sbin/ipfw ipfw.8src/sys/netinet ip_fw_pfil.c] Message-ID: <4145EE92.2060802@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <20040913185452.GB25795@ip.net.ua> References: <4145D02C.D02A18A0@freebsd.org> <20040913183038.GA25795@ip.net.ua> <4145EA7C.3000902@freebsd.org> <20040913185452.GB25795@ip.net.ua>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Ruslan Ermilov wrote: > On Mon, Sep 13, 2004 at 08:44:12PM +0200, Andre Oppermann wrote: > >>Ruslan Ermilov wrote: >> >>>On Mon, Sep 13, 2004 at 06:51:56PM +0200, Andre Oppermann wrote: >>> >>> >>>>I've fixed 'ipfw tee' in 6-current. Please try it and report back. This >>>>is pretty useful for passive packet monitoring. >>>> >>> >>>Just to make it crystal clear for everyone, the tee'd fragments are >>>still reassembled into a full packet before the diversion, correct? >> >>No, they are not. Only diverted packets are reassembled, tee'd packet >>are not. >> > > Then at least the divert(4) manpage should be updated to document the > difference in behavior (between "divert" and "tee"). Under BUGS the ipfw(8) man page now says only 'divert' will reassemble the packet. The old version said both do it. So I've changed that and removed 'tee' from it. Other than that there is no reference to this (non-)behaviour anywhere in that man page. -- Andre
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4145EE92.2060802>