Re: [RFC][patch] New "keep-state-only" option (version 3)

2015-02-04 Thread Julian Elischer
On 2/4/15 6:08 PM, bycn82 wrote: /Cool, But maybe not all people are following this topic, so can you please simplify it by answering below question in order to allow more people to know what is going on here. / /What kind of problem you are facing and how does your patch resolve it? / le

Re: [RFC][patch] New "keep-state-only" option (version 3)

2015-02-04 Thread Julian Elischer
On 2/4/15 5:24 PM, Lev Serebryakov wrote: -- Re-installation of state (with second, third, etc... packet of connection) should update TCP state of state (sorry!), or it will die in 10 seconds. This version seems to be final (apart from name of new option!). It works perfectly on my route

Re: [RFC][patch] New "keep-state-only" option (version 3)

2015-02-04 Thread bycn82
*Cool, But maybe not all people are following this topic, so can you please simplify it by answering below question in order to allow more people to know what is going on here.* *What kind of problem you are facing and how does your patch resolve it?* On 4 February 2015 at 17:24, Lev Serebryako

[RFC][patch] New "keep-state-only" option (version 3)

2015-02-04 Thread Lev Serebryakov
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 03.02.2015 19:55, Lev Serebryakov wrote: >> Ok, "allow-state"/"deny-state" was very limited idea. Here is >> more universal mechanism: new "keep-state-only" (aliased as >> "record-only") option, which works exactly as "keep-state" BUT >> cancel

Re: [RFC][patch] New "keep-state-only" option

2015-02-03 Thread Julian Elischer
On 2/4/15 1:32 PM, Julian Elischer wrote: On 2/4/15 12:13 AM, Lev Serebryakov wrote: And variants with multiple NATs and "nat global" becomes as easy as this, too! No stupid "skipto", no "keep-state" at "incoming from local network" parts of firewall, nothing! P.S. I HATE this "all any to an

Re: [RFC][patch] New "keep-state-only" option

2015-02-03 Thread Julian Elischer
On 2/4/15 12:13 AM, Lev Serebryakov wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Ok, "allow-state"/"deny-state" was very limited idea. Here is more universal mechanism: new "keep-state-only" (aliased as "record-only") option, which works exactly as "keep-state" BUT cancel match of

Re: [RFC][patch] New "keep-state-only" option (version 2)

2015-02-03 Thread Julian Elischer
On 2/4/15 12:55 AM, Lev Serebryakov wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 03.02.2015 19:13, Lev Serebryakov wrote: Ok, "allow-state"/"deny-state" was very limited idea. Here is more universal mechanism: new "keep-state-only" (aliased as "record-only") option, which works ex

Re: [RFC][patch] New "keep-state-only" option (version 2)

2015-02-03 Thread Lev Serebryakov
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 03.02.2015 19:13, Lev Serebryakov wrote: > Ok, "allow-state"/"deny-state" was very limited idea. Here is more > universal mechanism: new "keep-state-only" (aliased as > "record-only") option, which works exactly as "keep-state" BUT > cancel matc

[RFC][patch] New "keep-state-only" option

2015-02-03 Thread Lev Serebryakov
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Ok, "allow-state"/"deny-state" was very limited idea. Here is more universal mechanism: new "keep-state-only" (aliased as "record-only") option, which works exactly as "keep-state" BUT cancel match of rule after state creation. It allows to write