Re: routing problem (with corrected scheme)

[Julian Elischer]

> 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" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Donatas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 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 "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"