В вт, 14/12/2004 в 17:13 +0100, Andre Oppermann пишет: > > Yes, but is about "how netgraph interfere with ipfw" sometimes, netgraph > > filtering has nothing common with host filtering. > > Nontheless you need to call it from somewhere?
Yes, If, for example, I do connection of two VPNs without accessiong them into host packet flow and want to firewall something inside. > > > > 2. Plug firewall on any specific interface > > > > 3. Plug firewall on any network packet processing input/output (current) > > > > 4. Plug it into bridging code > > > > > > How do you represent this complexity in syntax and semantics? > > > > First what jump into my mind: > > > > flows management: > > ipfw flow add $customer1 iface fxp0 > > ipfw flow del $customer2 iface fxp0 > > ipfw flow set $customer1 iface fxp1 > > ipfw flow default $extrenal > > ipfw flow list > > > > changes rules for flow > > ipfw flow use $customer1 add ip from any to any > > ... > > Ok, this is a start. Now we are getting somewhere. > > A "flow" would be what Gleb calls a "chain"? Yes, exactly, just read Gleb's message. > > or as variant > > ipfw -F $customer1 add ip from any to any > > ... > > > > I think there can be better interface if think a bit about it. > > Great. Please do so. Probably better way to do ipfw flow set $custome1 add iface fxp0 del iface fxp1 ... etc for attaching multiple interfaces to single flow (or chain, does not matter) also ipfw flow add $dummy - to add not connected flow and ipfw flow default $dummy to make this flow system-default (instead of old) > > > This is the tricky problem to be solved first. Then we can start arguing > > > about implementation issues, API's, ABI's and other related things. > > > > Again, Gleb do not going to change API or ABI. > > Again, he does. In a major way. Ok, I do not want to deep into details until I'll look code, but I guess it is possible to extend PFIL_HOOKS API without harming existing applications. > > > So give me syntax and semantics examples how you want to operate this > > > functionality? > > > > see above > > > > > We do not dispute the need for per-interface rules. > > > > Ok, so we agree that it is good idea ? > > Yes. If it is smartly done it can help a lot. If not well done it > can wrek havrok. > -- Vladimir B. Grebenchikov [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"