problem using ng_patch

[saeedeh motlagh]

i have this problem too. please let me know if you find the solution.
thanks

>
>
> On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 1:07 PM, h bagade <bagadeh at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 12:57 PM, Nikolay Denev <ndenev at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Aug 11, 2012, at 11:07 AM, h bagade <bagadeh at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > > Hi all,
>> > >
>> > > I want to use the node ng_patch, to set the ToS field of special
>> class of
>> > > packets. I try to test the function by a simple test scenario and
>> > > encountered problem using it. I have no idea why the problem occurs.
>> > >
>> > > Here I explain the test scenario I've used.
>> > >
>> > > I have a topology like this:
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> |A:192.168.8.8|<---->|192.168.8.26--(B)--192.168.7.26|<---->|C:192.168.7.20|
>> > > --------------------------------
>> > > A, C: two end stations
>> > > B: a router
>> > > --------------------------------
>> > > netgraph settings:
>> > > kldload ng_ipfw
>> > > ngctl mkpeer ipfw: patch 300 in
>> > > ngctl name ipfw:300 tos
>> > > ngctl msg tos: setconfig {count=1 csum_flags=1 ops=[ {mode=1
>> value=0x05
>> > > length=1 offset=1}]}
>> > > --------------------------------
>> > > ipfw rule:
>> > > ipfw add 20 netgraph 300 icmp from any to 192.168.7.20
>> > >
>> > > This configuration works well and when A pings C or C pings A, the
>> > packets
>> > > destined to 192.168.7.20(station C) gets the ToS: 0x05.
>> > > The problem occurs when I change the ipfw rule to the following;
>> > >
>> > > ipfw add 20 netgraph 300 icmp from 192.168.7.20 to any
>> > >
>> > > By this rule, neither A can ping C nor C can ping A! the packets sent
>> to
>> > > ng_patch node never comes back to the next ipfw rule!
>> > >
>> > > I don't know what's the difference between these two scenarios (only
>> the
>> > > checking from destination address is changed to source address), but
>> it's
>> > > what I saw in my tests. I really hope to understand what's happening.
>> > >
>> > > Any hints or comments would help
>> > > _______________________________________________
>> > > freebsd-net at freebsd.org mailing list
>> > > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net
>> > > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscribe at freebsd.org
>> "
>> >
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > Do you have "sysctl net.inet.ip.fw.one_pass=0" set?
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> >
>> >
>> yes, As I described I've two scenarios, one work but the other doesn't,
>> and
>> the only difference is on ipfw rule!
>> _______________________________________________
>> freebsd-net at freebsd.org mailing list
>> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net
>> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"
>>
>
>