IPFW: more "orthogonal? state operations, push into 11?

[Julian Elischer]

So while thinking about states etc, it occured to me, what does THIS 
do on subsequent packets in the session?


10 skipto tablearg tcp from table(3) to me keep-state


On 4/08/2016 11:42 AM, Julian Elischer wrote:
> On 4/08/2016 3:08 AM, Andrey V. Elsukov wrote:
>> On 03.08.16 22:07, Lev Serebryakov wrote:
>>> On 03.08.2016 21:03, Andrey V. Elsukov wrote:
>>>
>>>>> 1/ ability to use keep-state without an implicit check-state. 
>>>>> <--- most
>>>>> important for me. (store-state)?
>>>>> 2/ ability to keep-state without actually doing it <---- less 
>>>>> important
>>>>> for me.
>>>> So, if there are nobody against, I plan to commit this part in a 
>>>> several
>>>> days.
>>>   Which implementation? Just curious, I could live with any, really.
>> This one
>> https://people.freebsd.org/~ae/ipfw.diff
>>
>> but with separate opcodes, I  have come to the opinion, that this will
>> be more readable.
>>
> so, reading it. it appears that teh record-state saves a rule as a 
> target but doesn't actually perform the rule, right?
>
> that needs to be made more clear in the man page
>
> you say " Instead, the firewall creates a dynamic rule and the 
> search continues with the next rule."
>
> so it's a combination of #1 and #2 in my list.  I think I originally 
> thought of having just #1.
>
> A combination is less useful for me as you need to do:
>
> 20 skipto 400 tcp from table(2) to me setup record-state
>
> 21 skipto 400 tcp from table(2) to me setup
>
> to make the entire session do the same thing.
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-ipfw at freebsd.org mailing list
> https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ipfw
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ipfw-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"
>