Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2010 13:02:01 -0500 From: Brandon Gooch <jamesbrandongooch@gmail.com> To: Eduardo Meyer <dudu.meyer@gmail.com> Cc: Patrick Tracanelli <eksffa@freebsdbrasil.com.br>, Luiz Otavio O Souza <lists.br@gmail.com>, ipfw@freebsd.org, Julian Elischer <julian@freebsd.org>, Adrian Chadd <adrian@ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> Subject: Re: layer2 ipfw 'fwd' support Message-ID: <AANLkTikHcEn5yKJdTRYV4WjPkeEosWtGZvyyOeEK2%2BgZ@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=syThdw-%2B%2BKAbVdJLGrh2JEFUJi5ztKs9cxWFE@mail.gmail.com> References: <AANLkTi=wHkmfDmoPrKN1SRcE9m=1_5iieAd85hQNWHs1@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTinj8wd9AbROwRzUAUK=XraYmTDkoB3MGddqq-Tn@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTin1vXOMPT6m8ybhNQk9G7WjDrCcSArP3Zwf65cR@mail.gmail.com> <4CAA1E7B.1020107@freebsd.org> <AANLkTikExTKMWvvDwn=rVUSqwz6UeVXi8WOSsHROQYq%2B@mail.gmail.com> <4CAA45CC.8020304@freebsd.org> <AANLkTikAd_fke1HfMgRy3h4fXpo7_DcX3E4%2BTu__3my8@mail.gmail.com> <4CAB8B35.7020703@freebsd.org> <AANLkTi=hoe%2BCaV6%2BbyagXYwzDRAHqCseh-M_44OxEeJO@mail.gmail.com> <4CACE7DE.9020106@freebsd.org> <AANLkTik2KEYACzjfTS%2BXpB3OiaJL-uYckbLbf2C0DWaS@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTi=syThdw-%2B%2BKAbVdJLGrh2JEFUJi5ztKs9cxWFE@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 10:55 AM, Eduardo Meyer <dudu.meyer@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 10:23 PM, Eduardo Meyer <dudu.meyer@gmail.com> wrote: [SNIP] > Luiz has added it to: http://loos.no-ip.org:280/lusca_bridge.diff > > I have tested and it works pretty well. > > I hope someone can add it to -HEAD, so we won't loose it again. With > time, ipfw code changes and such great patches like Rizzo's and > Julian's stop working one day. It's bad we miss such great > functionality. Sounds like a reasonable request. I hope it is considered. > Thank you again everyone envolved. Thanks goes to you for your persistence in getting this working. > Adrian / Luiz / Julian, > > With this patch fwd does it's job on L2, ordinary proxy works like a > charm. But TPROXY won't work. It would be perfect to have both > features together. If you can suggest any further tests or changes I > will be pleased to test. To be clear, are we getting to the point of having the capability in ipfw of doing something like this in pf: ... pass in quick on $INT_IF route-to lo0 inet proto tcp from any to 127.0.0.1 port 3128 keep state ... ...thus allowing true, transparent proxying? I really thought that this was possible already with ipfw :( I need to do some more reading... I would be very interested in obtaining details on your final setup, once everything is in place and fully functioning :) -Brandon
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?AANLkTikHcEn5yKJdTRYV4WjPkeEosWtGZvyyOeEK2%2BgZ>