Problems resolving hosts

Charles Swiger cswiger at
Fri Feb 27 13:51:53 PST 2004

On Feb 27, 2004, at 4:18 PM, JJB wrote:
> Well if you had paid closer attention to what Travis wrote you would
> have read that nothing had changed on that 5.2 lan box or his lan
> network so your guess about resolv.conf is way off base, and that
> UFS2 being the problem is a much more sound opinion.

Sigh.  I didn't claim that his resolv.conf changed; I didn't claim that 
his LAN network changed; I said that the behavior he describes is quite 
close to what would happen if one of the nameservers referenced in 
resolv.conf was having problems.

Do you not comprehend this?

> And as far as IPFW goes, your statement is again another case of you
> not paying attention to what was written. You really need to read
> closely before opening your mouth saying things which are not true.
> I never said "that IPFW is completely broken" what I said is ipfw
> stateful rules do not work in an Lan network when ipfw's
> divert/nated legacy subroutine is used. This subject was beat to
> death in a long thread back around the first of the year. You should
> check the archives for the technical details before you sound off
> demonstrating to everyone how little you know about what truly has
> transpired. Open mouth insert foot.

Young one, you are considerably less clever than you evidently think 
you are.  That's not surprising; this is unfortunately true of most 
people.  A tone of condescending snobbery pretty much is never 
appropriate, regardless of who is right or wrong.

I don't need to review the archives to remember that discussion; at 
that time I read them and concluded that you were unable to understand 
how to make IPFW+NAT work the way you expected it to.  However, there 
are lots of people who use IPFW+NAT successfully ("success" by their 
definitions, that is), just as there are people who use PF or other 


More information about the freebsd-questions mailing list