On Wed, Apr 11, 2007 at 09:27:27PM +0400, Andrey V. Elsukov wrote:

> > I have a router based on FreeBSD 6 running quagga/RIPv2
> > and want to filter all incoming packets sent to it (not forwarded throught 
> > it)
> > with a small set of exceptions. This router uses ipfw for packet filtering.
> 
> You can use "in recv" keywords to determine incoming packets.

I know, thanks. Now I'm just trying to make it work somehow
but without a success still.

> > There is no problem to filter unicasts. But I want also block all
> > broadcasts except of incoming RIPv2, some of hardware
> > routers send broadcasts instead of multicasts here.
> > I've tried this way:
> > ipfw add 30 allow tag 1 ip from any to any MAC ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff any
> 
> If you want use tags in the next rules, you should use `count' action 
> instead of `allow'.

I've just tried, replaced "allow" with "count" in the rule 30
but nothing changed. And I think there should be no difference for this
set of 3 rules, because a packet needs to be _allowed_ during layer2 pass
to reach layer3 pass where tags are used. So it should not matter
whether the rule 30 pass such packets or rule 40.

> > ipfw add 40 allow ip from any to any layer2
> > ipfw add 50 count log ip from any to any tagged 1
> > I hoped that rule 30 would tag all broadcasts with tag 1 during layer2
> > filtering pass and it'd keep its tag during layer3 filtering but it seems
> > it doesn't. If I send a broadcast with ping <IP-broadcast>
> > I see that rules 30 and 40 match this outgoing broadcast
> > but rule 50 does not. Am I doing something wrong or
> > is this behavour by design or is this a bug that deserve a PR?
> 
> If you want filter a RIPv2 packets, may be it's a good idea
> to use src-port or dst-port 520 with udp protocol?

I want also to learn how to distinguish unicast UDP from broadcast UDP.

Eugene
_______________________________________________
freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Reply via email to