On Tue, Dec 14, 2004 at 06:13:07AM -0800, Bruce M Simpson wrote: ... > What I'm really missing in IPFW is the ability to maintain one or more > 'shadow rulesets'. These rulesets may not be the active rulesets, but > I can manipulate them as tables, independently of the active ruleset(s),
??? What what ??? They do exist, they are called 'set' and you can associate rules to a specific set, atomically enable/disable/swap/rename sets, etc. This was designed exactly for this purpose (atomic updates of firewall configuration with a single syscall). have a look at the ipfw manpage and then see if it answer your needs. cheers luigi > IPF and PF have such functionality, IPFW does not. The lack of a documented > ABI/API for access to IPFW by applications other than ipfw(8) is something > which I'm leaving out of the picture for the moment. > I don't really consider using 'skipto' and separate sections of rule > index number space a valid answer here, because we should have the ability > to independently flush each ruleset. > > When extended to stateful rules (I am talking here purely about the simple > stateless packet filter case), this comes in even more useful. > > Regards, > BMS _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"