IPFW transparent VS dummynet rules

[budsz]

On Sun, Jan 8, 2012 at 1:00 PM, Ian Smith <smithi at nimnet.asn.au> wrote:
> On Sat, 7 Jan 2012, budsz wrote:
> [..]
>  > >             keyword instead of an explicit address.  The search terminates if
>  > >             this rule matches.
>  > >
>  > > Note particularly the last sentence.  You'll have to do your dummynet
>  > > piping first, if it is to apply also to forwarded packets.
>  > >
>  > > (sysctl)
>  > >      net.inet.ip.fw.one_pass: 1
>  > >             When set, the packet exiting from the dummynet pipe or from
>  > >             ng_ipfw(4) node is not passed though the firewall again.  Other-
>  > >             wise, after an action, the packet is reinjected into the firewall
>  > >             at the next rule.
>  > >
>  > > It seems that you may have one_pass set to 1.  Set to 0, packets will
>  > > continue through the ruleset on exit from pipe/s, so to your fwd rule.
>  > >
>  > > cheers, Ian
>  >
>  > Thank you very much, lazy to read ipfw(8) :)
>  >
>  > pipe pipe_nr
>  >              Pass packet to a dummynet ``pipe'' (for bandwidth limitation,
>  >              delay, etc.).  See the TRAFFIC SHAPER (DUMMYNET) CONFIGURATION
>  >              Section for further information.  The search terminates; however,
>  >              on exit from the pipe and if the sysctl(8) variable
>  >              net.inet.ip.fw.one_pass is not set, the packet is passed again to
>  >              the firewall code starting from the next rule.
>  >
>  >
>  > --
>  > budsz
>
> No problem.  However it's considered good form to also copy responses
> cc'd back to the two lists this thread appears on, for the archives.
>
> Not that I need the credit, but it shows that the advice was useful, and
> that other list members need not also respond, thinking it unresolved.
>
> cheers, Ian

OK,thank you for reminding me :)

TIA

-- 
budsz