Here is a fixed version of this patch. last one used an unitialised
variable.
Note: the whole ipfw/fwd scheme is non re-entrant. to fix it and some
other parts
of the code will require that we gain teh capability of associating
extra state with a packet.. e.g. "this packet has been diverted"
or
ethfw should be implemented as a negraph module...
(all teh hooks are already there)
On Fri, 16 Nov 2001, Mikel King wrote:
> Chrisy Luke wrote:
>
> > Mikel King wrote (on Nov 16):
> > > Just curious, but what's a doddle?
> >
> > It's like a doodle, but with less o's and more d's. :)
> >
> > I
A "doddle" is "a task so easy that you could do it in your sleep"
(BTW the patch has a small bug.. but the fix is trivial.)
On Fri, 16 Nov 2001, Mikel King wrote:
> Just curious, but what's a doddle?
>
> Cheers,
> mikel
>
> Julian Elischer wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 15 Nov 2001, Chrisy Luke wrot
Chrisy Luke wrote:
> Mikel King wrote (on Nov 16):
> > Just curious, but what's a doddle?
>
> It's like a doodle, but with less o's and more d's. :)
>
> It essentially means "this is easy to do".
>
> Chris.
> --
> == [EMAIL PROTECTED]T: +44 845 333 0122
> == Gl
Mikel King wrote (on Nov 16):
> Just curious, but what's a doddle?
It's like a doodle, but with less o's and more d's. :)
It essentially means "this is easy to do".
Chris.
--
== [EMAIL PROTECTED]T: +44 845 333 0122
== Global IP Network Engineering, Easynet G
Just curious, but what's a doddle?
Cheers,
mikel
Julian Elischer wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Nov 2001, Chrisy Luke wrote:
> > > > only packets already leaving the system can be hijacked and forwarded
> > > > to a 2nd machine. Incoming packets can only be forwarded to local
> > > > addresses/port combin
On Thu, 15 Nov 2001, Chrisy Luke wrote:
> > > only packets already leaving the system can be hijacked and forwarded
> > > to a 2nd machine. Incoming packets can only be forwarded to local
> > > addresses/port combinations.
>
> My fault. I was being lazy when I wrote it. :)
Ah it WAS you I comm
Excuse me feollowing up to myself, but...
Chrisy Luke wrote (on Nov 15):
> It looks good. The ipfw syntax doesn't quite make sense to me.
> Also, are you requiring that they all be on the same ipfw rule number?
Ignore this. Just occured to me you're sharing load based on a netmask.
A small stat
Julian Elischer wrote (on Nov 15):
> Oops forgot the patch.. here it is...
I almost replied to the first - too quick off the mark!
> Julian Elischer wrote:
> > Ipfw 'fwd' at present has teh following restriction:
> >
> > only packets already leaving the system can be hijacked and forwarded
>
Oops forgot the patch.. here it is...
Julian Elischer wrote:
>
> The following patch is expected to
> allow the forwarding of INCOMING packets to an arbitrary next hop
> controlled by the ipfw fwd command..
>
> Ipfw 'fwd' at present has teh following restriction:
>
> only packets already le
The following patch is expected to
allow the forwarding of INCOMING packets to an arbitrary next hop
controlled by the ipfw fwd command..
Ipfw 'fwd' at present has teh following restriction:
only packets already leaving the system can be hijacked and forwarded
to a 2nd machine. Incoming packet
11 matches
Mail list logo
