[Shorewall-users] Bug in Multi-ISP support

2007-08-21 Thread Tom Eastep
In helping a user on IRC today, I was dismayed to find that a bug that was supposedly fixed in Shorewall 3.4.4 was not fixed. Furthermore, I found that the bug is present as far back as 3.2.6 (I didn't look back further since 3.2.6 was the release where the user (re-) discovered the bug. If HIGH_R

Re: [Shorewall-users] Bug in Multi-ISP support

2007-08-21 Thread James Gray
On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 08:24:49 am Tom Eastep wrote: > In helping a user on IRC today, I was dismayed to find that a bug that > was supposedly fixed in Shorewall 3.4.4 was not fixed. Furthermore, I > found that the bug is present as far back as 3.2.6 (I didn't look back > further since 3.2.6 was the r

Re: [Shorewall-users] Bug in Multi-ISP support

2007-08-21 Thread Tom Eastep
James Gray wrote: > On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 08:24:49 am Tom Eastep wrote: >> In helping a user on IRC today, I was dismayed to find that a bug that >> was supposedly fixed in Shorewall 3.4.4 was not fixed. Furthermore, I >> found that the bug is present as far back as 3.2.6 (I didn't look back >> furth

Re: [Shorewall-users] Bug in Multi-ISP support

2007-08-23 Thread Tuomo Soini
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 James Gray wrote: > Thanks for the patches Tom. Are you releasing a new 3.4? Just curious as it > would make my version-management easier than rolling my own (patched) RPM. > Furthermore, the behaviour described seems to reflect the battles I've

Re: [Shorewall-users] Bug in Multi-ISP support

2007-08-23 Thread James Gray
Tuomo Soini wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > James Gray wrote: > >> Thanks for the patches Tom. Are you releasing a new 3.4? Just curious as >> it >> would make my version-management easier than rolling my own (patched) RPM. >> Furthermore, the behaviour describe

Re: [Shorewall-users] Bug in Multi-ISP support

2007-08-23 Thread Tom Eastep
On Fri, 2007-08-24 at 12:20 +1000, James Gray wrote: > > > "Nearly 100%"...yes. Try up-selling that to management who wont even > give me 15 minutes of downtime on a weekend :P > If your management demands that level of up-time then they surely must provide you with one or more test firewall

Re: [Shorewall-users] Bug in Multi-ISP support

2007-08-23 Thread Roberto C . Sánchez
On Thu, Aug 23, 2007 at 07:36:14PM -0700, Tom Eastep wrote: > On Fri, 2007-08-24 at 12:20 +1000, James Gray wrote: > > > > > > > "Nearly 100%"...yes. Try up-selling that to management who wont even > > give me 15 minutes of downtime on a weekend :P > > > > If your management demands that lev

Re: [Shorewall-users] Bug in Multi-ISP support

2007-08-23 Thread Andrew Suffield
On Thu, Aug 23, 2007 at 10:51:52PM -0400, Roberto C. S?nchez wrote: > On Thu, Aug 23, 2007 at 07:36:14PM -0700, Tom Eastep wrote: > > On Fri, 2007-08-24 at 12:20 +1000, James Gray wrote: > > > "Nearly 100%"...yes. Try up-selling that to management who wont even > > > give me 15 minutes of downtim

Re: [Shorewall-users] Bug in Multi-ISP support

2007-08-23 Thread James Gray
Tom Eastep wrote: > On Fri, 2007-08-24 at 12:20 +1000, James Gray wrote: > >> >> "Nearly 100%"...yes. Try up-selling that to management who wont even >> give me 15 minutes of downtime on a weekend :P >> > > If your management demands that level of up-time then they surely must > provide you wit

Re: [Shorewall-users] Bug in Multi-ISP support

2007-08-23 Thread James Gray
Andrew Suffield wrote: > On Thu, Aug 23, 2007 at 10:51:52PM -0400, Roberto C. S?nchez wrote: >> On Thu, Aug 23, 2007 at 07:36:14PM -0700, Tom Eastep wrote: >>> On Fri, 2007-08-24 at 12:20 +1000, James Gray wrote: "Nearly 100%"...yes. Try up-selling that to management who wont even give

Re: [Shorewall-users] Bug in Multi-ISP support

2007-08-23 Thread James Gray
James Gray wrote: > not necessarily "expectantly" either). The technology isn't necessarily I meant "UNexpectantly" of course. (It's been a long day). -- James - This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Still grepp