Re: Trouble with IPFW or TCP?

Julian Elischer wrote: > Ivan Voras wrote: >> Not according to the ipfw(8) manual: >> >> """ >> These dynamic rules, which have a limited lifetime, are checked >> at the >> first occurrence of a check-state, keep-state or limit rule, and >> are typ- >> ically used to open the firewa

Re: Trouble with IPFW or TCP?

Julian Elischer wrote: > Ivan Voras wrote: >> In which case would an ipfw ruleset like this: >> >> 00100 114872026 40487887607 allow ip from any to any via lo0 >> 00200 00 deny ip from any to 127.0.0.0/8 >> 00300 00 deny ip from 127.0.0.0/8 to any >> 00600

Re: bin/120720: [patch] [ipfw] unbreak POLA for ipfw table list

Hi! This PR was closed 6 weeks ago and had a record "MFC After: 3 days". http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=120720 There is still no MFC to RELENG_7 nor to RELENG_6 where POLA was broken. Please do it. Eugene Grosbein ___ freebsd-net@freebsd.or

Re: Trouble with IPFW or TCP?

On Thu, 3 Apr 2008, Julian Elischer wrote: > Ian Smith wrote: > > On Thu, 3 Apr 2008, Julian Elischer wrote: > > > Ivan Voras wrote: > > > > Erik Trulsson wrote: > > > >> On Fri, Apr 04, 2008 at 01:34:07AM +0200, Ivan Voras wrote: > > > >>> In which case would an ipfw ruleset like this:

Re: WMP54g, ral(4) driver, & 7.0-RELEASE -- Thanks, question, & comments

Ronald F. Guilmette wrote: I just wanted to drop a line and say "Thanks!" to everybody who worked on getting support for the Linksys WMP54g v4/v4.1 (and the RT2561C chipset - now supported by the ral(4) driver) into 7.0-RELEASE. I'm a total wireless neophite, but after a modest amount of fiddlin

Re: Measuring Wireless Performance (?)

Ronald F. Guilmette wrote: As I just mentioned in my immediately preceeding post, I'm a total neophite when it come to wirless networking, so I need to ask a rather basic question. In preparation for installing my first ever wireless network, I read up on the subject awhile first, and I found se

Re: Trouble with IPFW or TCP?

Ian Smith wrote: On Thu, 3 Apr 2008, Julian Elischer wrote: > Not that I have known... keep-state does not (and never has) include > an implicit check-state. Sorry (and surprised!) to have to differ, but you MADE me read the code! yep you are right.. boy is that ever a broken feature.. ther

Re: Trouble with IPFW or TCP?

Ian Smith wrote: That's pretty well described under keep-state and elsewhere. Good ol' ipfw(8) has yet to let me down, and like Ivan I recall keep-state rules (albeit only for UDP) without any check-state working just fine. Not that any of that helps solve Ivan's problem .. Thanks for verify

Re: TCP options order changed in FreeBSD 7, incompatible with some routers

I upgraded many web servers to FreeBSD 7.0-Release several weeks ago. These servers serve hundreds of thousands of users. Since then, we have had many users complain that they cannot connect to these servers any more. This was a very tricky problem to diagnose, but using packet captures on both th

Re: TCP options order changed in FreeBSD 7, incompatible with some routers

I believe this has already been covered in quite some depth and iirc its regards the ordering of the new tcp flags introduced in 7. Best to have a look in the list archives for the specifics. Regards Steve - Original Message - From: "s3raphi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I upgraded many

Re: TCP options order changed in FreeBSD 7, incompatible with some routers

On Fri, 4 Apr 2008, Steven Hartland wrote: Hi, I believe this has already been covered in quite some depth and iirc its regards the ordering of the new tcp flags introduced in 7. Best to have a look in the list archives for the specifics. so as more users come and see this I am still trying t

Re: Trouble with IPFW or TCP?

Ivan Voras wrote: Ian Smith wrote: That's pretty well described under keep-state and elsewhere. Good ol' ipfw(8) has yet to let me down, and like Ivan I recall keep-state rules (albeit only for UDP) without any check-state working just fine. Not that any of that helps solve Ivan's problem ..