Re: propose a new generic purpose rule option for ipfw

2014-07-01 Thread bycn82
May, 2014 21:10 > > To: bycn82 > > Cc: 'FreeBSD Net' > > Subject: Re: propose a new generic purpose rule option for ipfw > > > > > > > > On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 08:45:26PM +0800, bycn82 wrote: > > > > ... > > > > > > >

Re: propose a new generic purpose rule option for ipfw

2014-05-29 Thread 'Luigi Rizzo'
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 09:48:58PM +0800, bycn82 wrote: > > > -Original Message- > From: 'Luigi Rizzo' [mailto:ri...@iet.unipi.it] > Sent: 29 May, 2014 21:10 > To: bycn82 > Cc: 'FreeBSD Net' > Subject: Re: propose a new generic purpose rul

RE: propose a new generic purpose rule option for ipfw

2014-05-29 Thread bycn82
-Original Message- From: 'Luigi Rizzo' [mailto:ri...@iet.unipi.it] Sent: 29 May, 2014 21:10 To: bycn82 Cc: 'FreeBSD Net' Subject: Re: propose a new generic purpose rule option for ipfw On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 08:45:26PM +0800, bycn82 wrote: ... > > Su

Re: propose a new generic purpose rule option for ipfw

2014-05-29 Thread Andreas Nilsson
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 3:39 PM, Luigi Rizzo wrote: > > > > On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 3:32 PM, Andreas Nilsson wrote: > >> On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 3:10 PM, Luigi Rizzo wrote: >> >>> On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 08:45:26PM +0800, bycn82 wrote: >>> ... >>> > >>> > Sure, that is the reason why developers

Re: propose a new generic purpose rule option for ipfw

2014-05-29 Thread Luigi Rizzo
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 3:32 PM, Andreas Nilsson wrote: > On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 3:10 PM, Luigi Rizzo wrote: > >> On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 08:45:26PM +0800, bycn82 wrote: >> ... >> > >> > Sure, that is the reason why developers are providing more and more >> rule options. But the my question is

Re: propose a new generic purpose rule option for ipfw

2014-05-29 Thread Andreas Nilsson
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 3:10 PM, Luigi Rizzo wrote: > On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 08:45:26PM +0800, bycn82 wrote: > ... > > > > Sure, that is the reason why developers are providing more and more rule > options. But the my question is do we have enough options to match all the > fixed position values

Re: propose a new generic purpose rule option for ipfw

2014-05-29 Thread 'Luigi Rizzo'
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 08:45:26PM +0800, bycn82 wrote: ... > > Sure, that is the reason why developers are providing more and more rule > options. But the my question is do we have enough options to match all the > fixed position values? we do not have an option for fixed position matching. A

RE: propose a new generic purpose rule option for ipfw

2014-05-29 Thread bycn82
Sure your generic binary match could be a welcome addition to ipfw. But its usefulness is extremely limited in practice, as it only lets you match stuff in fixed position of a packet, and it is not even good to do other relatively simple things such as skip options and the like. Sure. W

Re: propose a new generic purpose rule option for ipfw

2014-05-29 Thread Luigi Rizzo
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 9:25 AM, Bill Yuan wrote: > hi > > the rule of ipfw is kind of semantic, and it is powerful. so it means good > for normal users. but not for developers of it, because simplicity actually > ​...​ > > So i am proposing a new rule option `u32` and the usage will be "u32 >

Re: propose a new generic purpose rule option for ipfw

2014-05-29 Thread Dennis Yusupoff
Looks very similar to ng_bpf + ipfw ngtee, isn't it? 29.05.2014 11:25, Bill Yuan пишет: > It is a really powerful thing in my opinion. but it has requirement, > to master it requires the knowledge of the structure of the > packet/frame/whatever. Anyone like this feature? Like it ? please > voice o