On Wed, May 24, 2006 at 10:26:34PM +0200, Andre Oppermann wrote: ... > I understand your rationale. OTOH I think it's a logical blunder and allows > some quite confusing rule sets. What I always liked about ipfw was the simple > and obvious logic in the statements. Over time it becomes more and more over- > loaded with more stuff and also more stuff breaking the beautiful simplicity > and clarity the original ipfw design had. ipfw rules used to read like normal > sentences and were really simple to write and understand. But then I'm just > ranting...
It is probably true that most of the times, when you tag/untag a packet you also need to do further processing on the packet. However, this means that the associated action will be a 'skipto'. But in this case, if you want to implement tag/untag as an action, the syntax becomes quite confusing because you need to specify the jump target, and the action name (tag/untag) doesn't properly reflect the fact that there is an implicit skipto. Given this, i think the current implementation of tag/untag is the most natural way to do it, and not too different from the "keep-state" option (which also has some side effects, namely creates a state record for the flow and has been in use for ages now) cheers luigi _______________________________________________ cvs-all@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-all To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
