Rulesm
  Home FAQ Contact Sign in
 
 Advanced search
MATCHING GROUPS



more...
POPULAR GROUPS

more...
found 3 articles for 0.303 sec
Vadim Goncharov wrote: > > Looked at the patch. Some line are changed e.g. in NAT definitions without any > visible changes, strange. > > Also, you're adding 7 opcode in the kernel, 2 for match and 5 for setting, > while having single "modip" action in userland. In the case of significantly > changing compilation rulesm, etc., we may need many new opcodes so we should > not waste them. For     

Group: fa.freebsd.hackers · Group Profile · Search for Rulesm in fa.freebsd.hackers
Author: Marcelo Araujo
Date: Mar 26, 2008 05:59

Hi Marcelo Araujo! On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 08:53:26 -0300; Marcelo Araujo wrote about 'Re: [HEADS UP!] IPFW Ideas: possible SoC 2008 candidate': 2.5. Just to mention: modip, counter limits, fragments. These patches are already currently discussed in ipfw@, but included here just to not forget. These are "modip" action, allowing to modify IP header (DSCP, ToS, TTL) and corresponding
Show full article (1.48Kb) · Show article thread
Hi Alexey Solovyov! On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 11:50:40 +0300; Alexey Solovyov wrote about 'http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/firewalls-ipfw.html': > The subj says: > A simple example of ruleset file can be following: > add block in all > add block out all > ... A valid ruleset script that would be equivalent to the ruleset > file shown     

Group: fa.freebsd.hackers · Group Profile · Search for Rulesm in fa.freebsd.hackers
Author: Vadim Goncharov
Date: Mar 26, 2008 01:50

Show full article (2.49Kb) · Show article thread
    

Group: muc.lists.freebsd.doc · Group Profile · Search for Rulesm in muc.lists.freebsd.doc
Author: Vadim Goncharov
Date: Mar 4, 2008 03:46

Show full article (1.92Kb) · Show article thread