Re: routing problem (with corrected scheme)
From: Julian Elischer (julian_at_elischer.org)
Date: 08/31/05
- Previous message: Bart Van Kerckhove: "Re: Feature requests / inquiries."
- In reply to: Donatas: "Re: routing problem (with corrected scheme)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 01:26:23 -0700 (PDT) To: "Donatas" <donatas@lrtc.net>
> Good morning,
> after comprehensive tests I am glad to inform that your suggestions works
> just fine, so - thanks for help solving our problem.
>
> Truth, i've got one question realated to the exampel rule below:
>>ipfw add 1000 fwd ip4 ip from any to any out recv em0 xmit vlan{mumble}
>
> After several tests i have recognized that localy generated packets (like
> icmp traffic) never matches this rule. The problem is in "xmit
> vlan{number}" part. Is it so because of different place of packet input?
> Transit packets come to firewall from ether_demux and passes the rule,
> while localy generated packets come to firewall from ip_input and fails
locally generated packets do not match recv em0
> this rule? Using "pass" instead of "fwd" results in the same.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Julian Elischer" <julian@elischer.org>
> To: "Donatas" <donatas@lrtc.net>
> Sent: Saturday, August 20, 2005 8:31 AM
> Subject: Re: routing problem (with corrected scheme)
>
>
>> did my sugestion work?
>>
>
_______________________________________________
freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
- Previous message: Bart Van Kerckhove: "Re: Feature requests / inquiries."
- In reply to: Donatas: "Re: routing problem (with corrected scheme)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
|
