On 12/31/14 15:43, Andrea Venturoli wrote:
> Hello.
>
> This might be a strange idea, but does such a thing exist?
>
> I mean: is there any tool that can show in real-time which dynamic rules
> are active, their timers, etc... like top does for processes?
>
I'm using the port sysutils/cmdwatch
Hello.
This might be a strange idea, but does such a thing exist?
I mean: is there any tool that can show in real-time which dynamic rules
are active, their timers, etc... like top does for processes?
bye & Thanks
av.
___
freebsd-net@freebs
Running the patch now. So far its still running. Up for 22:57 at the
moment. I also made a change to my kern.maxusers to make it 320. It was
setting it at 250 automatically, so I bumped it up as I saw someone
else's post on a bug saying his maxusers option in the kernel was 15.
Figured smaller
Hi,
On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 12:41:04 -0800, Jonathan Feally <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sorry to cross post, but the net list didn't help a couple weeks back on
> this.
>
> names, natd, and dhcpd have all been getting stuck in zoneli (zone
> limit) since I upgraded to the box to stable about a mont
Sorry to cross post, but the net list didn't help a couple weeks back on
this.
names, natd, and dhcpd have all been getting stuck in zoneli (zone
limit) since I upgraded to the box to stable about a month ago. It was
running a 6.1-STABLE before with out difficulty. Very little has changed
on
On Thu, May 23, 2002 at 02:51:16AM +0200, John Angelmo wrote:
> On Wed, 22 May 2002 17:28:37 -0700
> "Crist J. Clark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, May 20, 2002 at 07:39:36PM +0200, John Angelmo wrote:
> > > Hello
> > >
> > > I have a small problem with IPFW
> > >
> > > How can I han
On Wed, 22 May 2002 17:28:37 -0700
"Crist J. Clark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, May 20, 2002 at 07:39:36PM +0200, John Angelmo wrote:
> > Hello
> >
> > I have a small problem with IPFW
> >
> > How can I handle adding and removing rules based on IP/MAC per user?
>
> Per user? You mean
On Mon, May 20, 2002 at 07:39:36PM +0200, John Angelmo wrote:
> Hello
>
> I have a small problem with IPFW
>
> How can I handle adding and removing rules based on IP/MAC per user?
Per user? You mean with 'uid' options?
> I can add a rule for a specific IP/MAC without the need to flush but can
t; Sent: Monday, May 20, 2002 5:23 PM
> To: 'John Angelmo'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: "dynamic" ipfw
>
>
>
> Check out http://www.bsdshell.com <http://www.bsdshell.com> 's
> EtherFirewall project. It will allow you to maintain Mac addr
Title: RE: "dynamic" ipfw
a
search on google did not turn up anything for me and the webpage is just a page
with seiki on it and no other links:
<html>
<head>
<title>seikititle>
head>
<body bgcolor="#FF" text="#00">
&
Title: RE: "dynamic" ipfw
John,
What
do you mean by does it do anything? Currently all three projects are
working and we are in the process of finishing new verisons.
;)
-Scott
-Original Message-From: Mire, John
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]Sent: Tuesday, May 21,
Title: RE: "dynamic" ipfw
nice
project page, does it do anything?
-Original Message-From: Scott Ullrich
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]Sent: Monday, May 20, 2002 5:23
PMTo: 'John Angelmo'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: RE:
"dynamic" ipfw
Check
Title: RE: "dynamic" ipfw
Check out http://www.bsdshell.com 's EtherFirewall project. It will allow you to maintain Mac addresses with your IPFW rules.
Now regarding the hostname to ip address conversion for firewall rules. I have a feeling it is translating the IP addr
Hello
I have a small problem with IPFW
How can I handle adding and removing rules based on IP/MAC per user?
I can add a rule for a specific IP/MAC without the need to flush but can
I remove it in the same way?
now lets say I have a user that only needs access to it's mailserver
mail.user.com
I recently was heard to elocute:
>Memory wise, the patches only increase memory use in the dynamic rules (a
>single unsigned short), using a union to store the information in the main
>ruleset since for keep-state rules the union in question was not in use (or
>so I believe - no one has told me
Sebastien Petit ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) was heard to say:
>I found your patches for 5.0-CURRENT, I will update it for 4.4 and 4.5,
>thank you Crist.
>Will this patch be commited in 5.0-RELEASE or perhaps 4.6 ? I think
>this is a good functionnality imho.
>
>--
>Sebastien Petit
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Th
I found your patches for 5.0-CURRENT, I will update it for 4.4 and 4.5,
thank you Crist.
Will this patch be commited in 5.0-RELEASE or perhaps 4.6 ? I think
this is a good functionnality imho.
--
Sebastien Petit
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
The HUT Project
http://www.bsdshell.net/
On 2002.01.26 02:53 Cri
On Fri, Jan 25, 2002 at 11:39:29AM -0800, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
> there were patches floating around for something similar.
>
> cheers
> luigi
>
> On Fri, Jan 25, 2002 at 05:28:38PM +0100, Sebastien Petit wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Is there a way to set per keep-state rule timeout ?
> > I
there were patches floating around for something similar.
cheers
luigi
On Fri, Jan 25, 2002 at 05:28:38PM +0100, Sebastien Petit wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Is there a way to set per keep-state rule timeout ?
> I want to have a little ack timeout for connection to mysql database tcp 3306
Hi,
Is there a way to set per keep-state rule timeout
?
I want to have a little ack timeout for connection
to mysql database tcp 3306 but a long ack timeout for other
rules.
if not perhaps this syntax can be implemented on
ipfw code, for example:
ipfw add ... keepstate setup timeout-ack
20 matches
Mail list logo
