Ian Smith wrote:
On Sun, 16 Nov 2008, Jin Guojun[VFF] wrote:
> Ian Smith wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 15 Nov 2008, Jin Guojun[VFF] wrote:
> >
> > >I think this is a bug in ipfw because after change the rule order, the
> > >problem persists:
> > >0056626 3090 deny ip from 221.192.1
On Sun, 16 Nov 2008, Jin Guojun[VFF] wrote:
> Ian Smith wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 15 Nov 2008, Jin Guojun[VFF] wrote:
> >
> > >I think this is a bug in ipfw because after change the rule order, the
> > >problem persists:
> > >0056626 3090 deny ip from 221.192.199.36 to any
Ian Smith wrote:
On Sat, 15 Nov 2008, Jin Guojun[VFF] wrote:
>I think this is a bug in ipfw because after change the rule order, the
>problem persists:
>0056626 3090 deny ip from 221.192.199.36 to any
>65330 2018 983473 allow tcp from any to any established
>65535
Ian Smith wrote:
On Sat, 15 Nov 2008, Jin Guojun[VFF] wrote:
>I think this is a bug in ipfw because after change the rule order, the
>problem persists:
>0056626 3090 deny ip from 221.192.199.36 to any
>65330 2018 983473 allow tcp from any to any established
>65535
I think this is a bug in ipfw because after change the rule order, the
problem persists:
0056626 3090 deny ip from 221.192.199.36 to any
65330 2018 983473 allow tcp from any to any established
65535 00 deny ip from any to any
15:47:21.238720 IP 221.192.199.
But the rule 330 should only allow established TCP pass through. In
other words, Sync should NOT
allowed by rule 330, or I missed something for this rule?
Erik Trulsson wrote:
On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 01:38:02PM -0800, Jin Guojun[VFF] wrote:
Below is set of ipfw rules, but it seems
On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 01:38:02PM -0800, Jin Guojun[VFF] wrote:
> Below is set of ipfw rules, but it seems that not all rules are
> functioning properly.
> From rule 361 to first two of rule 567 are not blocking any traffic and
> not measuring any traffic.
> Is this bacuse tcp rule )330) can ov
