Mark,
You've raised some good points here. I'm going to start a new thread
on -net and -rc to see if we can't sort out how this _should_ work.
Doug
--
This .signature sanitized for your protection
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
htt
> On Saturday 17 March 2007 03:58, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> > > > nothing goes to this machine because by default everything is blocked
> > > > until
> > > >
> > > > you permit it
> > >
> > > You're absolutely correct, however your original post seems to have
> > > taken many of us by surprise, ca
On Saturday 17 March 2007 03:58, Mark Andrews wrote:
> > > nothing goes to this machine because by default everything is blocked
> > > until
> > >
> > > you permit it
> >
> > You're absolutely correct, however your original post seems to have
> > taken many of us by surprise, causing some of us (a
> On Fri, Mar 16, 2007 at 08:33:01PM -0300, JoaoBR wrote:
> > On Friday 16 March 2007 18:50, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
> > > Okay, imagine this order:
> > >
> > > 1) Kernel starts
> > > 2) Network driver is loaded
> > > 3) Link is brought up
> > > 4) Interface is configured for IP (manually or via DH
On Fri, Mar 16, 2007 at 08:33:01PM -0300, JoaoBR wrote:
> On Friday 16 March 2007 18:50, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
> > Okay, imagine this order:
> >
> > 1) Kernel starts
> > 2) Network driver is loaded
> > 3) Link is brought up
> > 4) Interface is configured for IP (manually or via DHCP)
> > 5) Firewa
On Friday 16 March 2007 18:50, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 16, 2007 at 06:00:30PM -0300, JoaoBR wrote:
> > man, starting ipfw after network does not mean that the network is not up
>
> Okay, imagine this order:
>
> 1) Kernel starts
> 2) Network driver is loaded
> 3) Link is brought up
> 4)
> Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 15:40:44 +0200
> From: Pertti Kosunen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> JoaoBR wrote:
> > I don't agree to what you say
> > what sense does it make to have my forward rules up but natd still not?
> > what sense does it makes logging while syslog is not up
On Fri, Mar 16, 2007 at 06:00:30PM -0300, JoaoBR wrote:
> man, starting ipfw after network does not mean that the network is not up
Okay, imagine this order:
1) Kernel starts
2) Network driver is loaded
3) Link is brought up
4) Interface is configured for IP (manually or via DHCP)
5) Firewall rul
On Friday 16 March 2007 10:40, Pertti Kosunen wrote:
> JoaoBR wrote:
> > I don't agree to what you say
> > what sense does it make to have my forward rules up but natd still not?
> > what sense does it makes logging while syslog is not up?
>
> What would it forward & log when network isn't up?
ma
JoaoBR wrote:
I don't agree to what you say
what sense does it make to have my forward rules up but natd still not?
what sense does it makes logging while syslog is not up?
What would it forward & log when network isn't up?
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.
On Friday 16 March 2007 08:52, Oliver Fromme wrote:
>
> > > > rcorder: file `/etc/rc.d/ipfw' is before unknown provision
> > > > `NETWORKING' rcorder: requirement `ppp' in file `/etc/rc.d/ipfw' has
> > > > no providers.
> > >
> > > That sounds like you have accidentally deleted the files
> >
JoaoBR <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Friday 16 March 2007 07:51, Oliver Fromme wrote:
> > JoaoBR <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > since some time now it seems ipfw starts first of all, I think that is
> > > not correct
> >
> > No, it starts after networking is up, which is the correct
> >
On Friday 16 March 2007 07:51, Oliver Fromme wrote:
> JoaoBR <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > since some time now it seems ipfw starts first of all, I think that is
> > not correct
>
> No, it starts after networking is up, which is the correct
> behaviour, I think.
it should
>
> > rcorder: file
JoaoBR <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> since some time now it seems ipfw starts first of all, I think that is not
> correct
No, it starts after networking is up, which is the correct
behaviour, I think.
> rcorder: file `/etc/rc.d/ipfw' is before unknown provision `NETWORKING'
> rcorder: require
14 matches
Mail list logo
