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
