https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201590
--- Comment #5 from g_amana...@yahoo.com ---
Setting net.inet.ip.fw.dyn_keepalive=0 resolves the problem.
However the bug remains as the keepalive packets should be NATed in the first
place.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201488
Hiren Panchasara changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||freebsd-net@FreeBSD.org
--- Com
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201590
--- Comment #4 from g_amana...@yahoo.com ---
I think it has to do with the keepalives produced from ip_fw_dynamic.c.
The packets go through ip_output() and this may be the reason they are not
NATed. Just my impression of skimming through the
It sounds like at least two drivers have the ability, and at least
three people have the interest. I'll put this on my list. I'm not
sure if I'll get to work on it soon, though.
-Alan
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 9:40 AM, Eric Joyner wrote:
> ixl(4) will list all of the supported module types for th
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201590
--- Comment #3 from Ben Woods ---
I also have the following in my /etc/sysctl.conf to allow packets to have more
than 1 pass through the firewall (for in-kernel NAT):
net.inet.ip.fw.one_pass=0
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201590
--- Comment #2 from Ben Woods ---
I can confirm I am also seeing some local network addresses escape out to the
Internet when using IPFW with in-kernel NAT. Indeed it appears to be the
ZeroWindow packets.
# tcpdump -n -e -ttt -i tun0 src n
Hi,
I am using an IP on a loopback interface and no matter
if I "down" the interface, the kernel still uses that
address as a valid address, that is, still accepting
traffic to the loopback address etc. Is this a bug?
Thanks for any ideas,
Nikos
___
f
David
Yep.. we got that wrong.
If 1 is returned by the submit it means the PCB was lost. If 0 is
returned you unlock as usual.
R
On Jul 21, 2015, at 5:59 PM, David Wolfskill wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 03:21:16PM -0500, Eric van Gyzen wrote:
>> ...
So it looks like net swi, leaking s
