Andre,
Is your silence is an approval to commit a diff in kern/73129?
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005, 13:26+0300, Maxim Konovalov wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Dec 2004, 11:58+0100, Andre Oppermann wrote:
>
> > Edwin Groothuis wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sun, Dec 05, 2004 at 01:14:49AM +0300, Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
> > > >
On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 01:26:52PM +0300, Maxim Konovalov wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Dec 2004, 11:58+0100, Andre Oppermann wrote:
>
> > Edwin Groothuis wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sun, Dec 05, 2004 at 01:14:49AM +0300, Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
> > > > On Sun, Dec 05, 2004 at 12:53:52AM +0300, Maxim Konovalov wrote
On Sat, 11 Dec 2004, 11:58+0100, Andre Oppermann wrote:
> Edwin Groothuis wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, Dec 05, 2004 at 01:14:49AM +0300, Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
> > > On Sun, Dec 05, 2004 at 12:53:52AM +0300, Maxim Konovalov wrote:
> > > M> IMHO restoring the historic behaviour (even broken in some respect
Edwin Groothuis wrote:
>
> On Sun, Dec 05, 2004 at 01:14:49AM +0300, Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
> > On Sun, Dec 05, 2004 at 12:53:52AM +0300, Maxim Konovalov wrote:
> > M> IMHO restoring the historic behaviour (even broken in some respects)
> > M> is the best thing we can do at the moment.
> >
> > + my
On Sun, Dec 05, 2004 at 01:14:49AM +0300, Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 05, 2004 at 12:53:52AM +0300, Maxim Konovalov wrote:
> M> IMHO restoring the historic behaviour (even broken in some respects)
> M> is the best thing we can do at the moment.
>
> + my vote.
Mine too.
> Using 'ipfw fwd'
On Sun, Dec 05, 2004 at 12:53:52AM +0300, Maxim Konovalov wrote:
M> IMHO restoring the historic behaviour (even broken in some respects)
M> is the best thing we can do at the moment.
+ my vote.
Using 'ipfw fwd' on packets just being nated, is a very common and used
technique. I know several place
On Sat, 4 Dec 2004, 21:37+0100, Andre Oppermann wrote:
[...]
> > Investigating pre-PFIL_HOOKS ipfw I have not found any analog of
> > this check. These checks do break some useful functionality:
> >
> > 1) policy routing of hosts from connected networks
> > 2) policy routing of locally originated
Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
>
> Andre,
>
> what is reason for these two checks in ip_output():
>
> if (!in_localip(ip->ip_src) && !in_localaddr(ip->ip_dst)) {
> dst = (struct sockaddr_in *)&ro->ro_dst;
> bcopy((fwd_tag+1), dst, sizeof(
Andre,
what is reason for these two checks in ip_output():
if (!in_localip(ip->ip_src) && !in_localaddr(ip->ip_dst)) {
dst = (struct sockaddr_in *)&ro->ro_dst;
bcopy((fwd_tag+1), dst, sizeof(struct sockaddr_in));
