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

[Julian Elischer]

On 4/08/2016 6:27 PM, Lev Serebryakov wrote:
> Hello Julian,
>
> Thursday, August 4, 2016, 6:42:45 AM, you wrote:
>
>> A combination is less useful for me as you need to do:
>    I'm against this too, as I really love orthogonality, as everybody know
>   already, and your example is good example why.
>
>> 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.
>   Sometimes it could be
>
> 20 skipto 400 tcp from table(2) to me setup record-state
> 21 check-state
>
>   But only sometimes.

exactly.. I don't want OTHER packets coming past here to hit a 
check-state yet.. I still have unfinished business with them.

>