Another bug in IPFW@ ...?

[Luigi Rizzo]

On Tue, Aug 02, 2005 at 09:51:45PM -0300, AT Matik wrote:
...
> even if I agree to your logic aspect in general I thought
> 
> out and xmit is probably exactly the same still especially as you set 
> src-ip and dst-ip so the interface where this packages are xmit is 
> defined by the routes

> 
> localhost normally runs on lo0 which is an interface as any other 
> 
> so which ghost packages you try to catch here?

there are internally generated packets which do not have
a rcvif (which is what really 'recv' means);
and any packet in the input path does not have an output-if
(which is wht really 'xmit' means).

so "out" and "xmit any" are the same thing
(and "in" is "not out" so the same as "not xmit any"), assuming
there is a route for the destination (but otherwise i believe the
packet is dropped before reaching the firewall),

but i cannot find a synonim for "recv any"

cheers
luigi