Hi, >>>>> On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 22:34:49 -0800 >>>>> Julian Elischer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
julian> Hajimu UMEMOTO wrote: julian> huh? julian> divert of an ipv6 packet still makes sense! I don't say that divert of an IPv6 doesn't make sence. The existing implementation of both divert and nat cannot handle an IPv6. So, when an IPv6 support for ipfw2 is enabled, the line doesn't pass the IPv6 packets. Sincerely, -- Hajimu UMEMOTO @ Internet Mutual Aid Society Yokohama, Japan [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED],jp.}FreeBSD.org http://www.imasy.org/~ume/ _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-all To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
