addition to ipfw..

Julian Elischer julian at
Sat Dec 16 20:58:00 PST 2006

Andre Oppermann wrote:
> Max Laier wrote:
>> I don't like the implementation for this reason.  It feels hackish to 
>> me.  What is the reason that you didn't duplicate the ethernet header 
>> approach in ip_fw_pfil.c?  Speed?  Did you measure?  It is certainly 
>> easier to properly strip off the vlan header in the pfil hook code and 
>> reattach it when done (or trust the hardware to do it - if M_VLANTAG 
>> was set in the first place).
>> As an aside, I agree that the mtod mania isn't that great either and 
>> we should probably do away with it.  But that's orthogonal to the vlan 
>> handling - I just don't like that to be pulled into *IP*fw.  This 
>> might just be me, however.
> IMO we should split IPFW into two parts (at least logically), one for
> *IP* firewalling, as you say, and one for Ethernet firewalling.  With
> different not-intermixed rulesets.  /sbin/ipfw could get a hardlink to
> /sbin/efw to do the ethernet rules display and manipulation.  Note that
> this is a different thing from the etherbridge stuff where a layer 2
> frame is inspected and turned temporarily into a layer 3 IP packet for
> inspection on the IP layer.

which is what this is for.. I'm inspecting IP packets as they are 
bridged even if they are in vlans.


More information about the freebsd-net mailing list