Re: rc.order wrong (ipfw)

2007-03-18 Thread Kian Mohageri
Doug Barton wrote: > I believe (for whatever that's worth) that firewalls (and firewall > rules) _should_ be loaded prior to the interfaces coming up. If someone > wants to have dynamic rules, rules that rely on name resolution, or > rules for non-physical (e.g., cloned) interfaces, that's fine, bu

Re: rc.order wrong (ipfw)

2007-03-18 Thread Mike Telahun Makonnen
Hi guys, Long time no see :P I don't have anything to say directly about this issue (other than that I'm leaning towards Doug's reasoning on this) but I'm working on a patch to integrate IPv6 handling into rc.d/netif, which might indirectly have a bearing on this discussion. I'm currently testin

Re: rc.order wrong (ipfw)

2007-03-18 Thread Doug Barton
Kian Mohageri wrote: I agree VERY MUCH with this sort of approach. It would be a much cleaner solution than completely separate handling of all of these different problems. I'm trying to get an idea of what all of the major problems with the current order are, and these are the ones I'm aware

Re: rc.order wrong (ipfw)

2007-03-18 Thread Kian Mohageri
Doug Barton wrote: > That said, if the issues of needing to resolve hostnames and set up > rules for cloned interfaces are a universal problem (and it seems that > they are) then perhaps rather than customizing a solution for pf it > might be worthwhile to have a more generic "firewalls_late" scrip

Re: Wireshark

2007-03-18 Thread Guy Helmer
Max Laier wrote: On Saturday 17 March 2007 19:16, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Can someone please explain the difference between Wireshark and Wireshark-lite. I would like to install a packet sniffer on my FreeBSD box for CLI only. Thanks, What's wrong with tcpdump(8)? Other than that bui

Re: rc.order wrong (ipfw)

2007-03-18 Thread Doug Barton
Kian Mohageri wrote: I can't speak for ipfw, but removing the REQUIRE: netif for pf might break some setups where the ruleset references a cloned interface that netif creates. Correct me if I'm wrong? Loading a minimal ruleset initially (as OpenBSD and NetBSD do) would solve that problem, at le

6.2-STABLE: enc0 sees only outgoing packets in pf

2007-03-18 Thread Andre Albsmeier
(This is FreeBSD 6.2-STABLE as of yesterday using pf and FAST_IPSEC.) Yesterday I started to play around with enc0 in pf. I hoped I could now control IPSEC traffic in the standard way with pf rules but it seems that only outgoing packets hit enc0. I added a pass quick log on enc0 all on top of a