27; to TCP `keep state' rules. This
doesn't help, and neither does clearing the state table entries using `ipf
-FS'.
The reboots are obviously unwanted. Anyone else seeing this behavior? Is this
a bug in IPFilter 4.1.8 (416)?
--
Jos Backus
jos at catnook.com
_
On Tue, Oct 21, 2003 at 08:59:38PM -0700, Lars Eggert wrote:
> Jos Backus wrote:
> >If one has many (thousands) hosts/addresses that the same filter action
> >needs to be taken for, what would be the most efficient way to implement
> >this using, say, ipfw or ipfilter?
>
ilter rule. So
rather than having many rules that need to be scanned sequentially there would
only be one rule and the matching mechanism would use a hash table instead.
Thoughts?
--
Jos Backus _/ _/_/_/ Sunnyval
t; way the socket code works that is causing this.
>
> FYI, this error is happening when mpd attempts to do a connect(2)
> on a (PF_INET, SOCK_RAW, IPPROTO_GRE) socket (which should normally
> always succeed immediately).
Thanks. This smells like a -cur
000 ng_bpf.ko
101 0xc2ba5000 5000 ng_vjc.ko
111 0xc2baa000 5000 ng_pptpgre.ko
121 0xc2baf000 4000 ng_mppc.ko
Any idea what is going on? What could I be doing wrong?
Thanks,
--
Jos Backus
en. It works fine now. Thanks!
The bug in samplicator is still there in 1.3.1; I'll send a note to the
author(s).
--
Jos Backus _/ _/_/_/Santa Clara, CA
_/ _/ _/
_/ _/_/_/
_
Sep 14, 2001 at 12:23:57PM -0700, Jos Backus wrote:
> > struct sock {
> > int fport;
> > int fsockfd;
> > longsockbuflen;
> > };
> >
> > static int
> > init_sock(ctx)
> > struct sock
tes from 157.57.212.23:1448
The 0.0.0.0 is caused by using INADDR_ANY as the binding address; what I don't
understand is why Solaris shows the portnumber whereas FreeBSD doesn't. Surely
I am doing something wrong, but what?
Thanks,
--
Jos Backus _/ _/_/_/
On Thu, Jul 26, 2001 at 03:45:15PM -0500, Bill Fumerola wrote:
> > In my Copious Free Time(tm), maybe I'll poke at DPF; it looked
> > neat...
Also, there's BPF+; see
http://www.tcpdump.org/lists/workers/2000/msg00345.html
for some
