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 <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 12:57 PM, Nikolay Denev <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > On Aug 11, 2012, at 11:07 AM, h bagade <[email protected]> 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 >> > > _______________________________________________ >> > > [email protected] mailing list >> > > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net >> > > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected] >> " >> > >> > 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! >> _______________________________________________ >> [email protected] mailing list >> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net >> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]" >> > > _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
