Hi ALL!
The PF has useful state-policy option: if-bound, group-bound, floating.
I have found out IPFW stateful rules do not become attached to the interface
and behave as PF stateful rules in floating mode.
For example, I build stateful rules (29991,31991) on two interfaces for two
different ne
On 4/3/07, Prokofiev S.P. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi ALL!
The PF has useful state-policy option: if-bound, group-bound, floating.
I have found out IPFW stateful rules do not become attached to the interface
and behave as PF stateful rules in floating mode.
For example, I build stateful rules
Hi!
I want both staff nets to have internet access and another my networks
by dynamic rules (i.e. connections initialized by staff[12]), and to be
isolated from any: inet (if-default) and networks on this router interfaces
with varios stateless and stateful rules.
I have drawn the simplified
On Tue, Apr 03, 2007 at 09:37:57AM +0300, Niki Denev wrote:
> >
> > I have fixed this up, a couple of spaces slipped into the Makefile.
> >
> >
>
> I tried today to do the wireless/wired roaming, almost as given
> in the man page, with the exception that my wireless interface (ath),
> uses WPA,
Hi Mike,
Thank you for working on this. I'm always glad to see someone working
on homogenization. I dare to post a few comments though:
On Thu, Mar 29, 2007 at 09:29:06PM +0300, Mike Makonnen wrote:
> What it does
>
> - rc.d/network_ipv6 is no longer necessary and can be removed
>
I keep forgetting to do a review so a few comments now and hopefully a
fuller review later.
On Thu, Mar 29, 2007 at 09:29:06PM +0300, Mike Makonnen wrote:
> Hello folks,
>
> Ever since rc.d was brought into the tree we all agreed IPv6 needed
> to be integrated better. Well, I've finally gotten ar
