KES wrote:
> ????????????, Lowell.
> ?? ?????? 16 ?????? 2009 ?., 15:22:31:
> LG> KES <> writes:
>>>      The tablearg feature provides the ability to use a value, looked up in
>>>      the table, as the argument for a rule action, action parameter or rule
>>>      option.  This can significantly reduce number of rules in some 
>>> configura-
>>>      tions.  If two tables are used in a rule, the result of the second 
>>> (des-
>>>      tination) is used.  The tablearg argument can be used with the 
>>> following
>>>      actions: nat, pipe, queue, divert, tee, netgraph, ngtee, fwd, skipto
>>>      action parameters: tag, untag, rule options: limit, tagged.
>>> Why tablearg cannot be used with setfib?
> LG> Because tables are a feature of IPFW, and the FIB isn't.
> setfib is also feature of ipfw. see man:
>      setfib fibnum
>              The packet is tagged so as to use the FIB (routing table) fibnum
>              in any subsequent forwarding decisions. Initially this is limited
>              to the values  0 through 15. See setfib(8).  Processing continues
>              at the next rule.
> There is no any difficulties to use 'tablearg' as 'fibnum'
> ipfw add 3 setfib 2 all from to any in recv <IFACE>
> ipfw add 3 setfib tablearg all from table(<X>) to any in recv <IFACE>
> but now this is not mistake to write 'setfib tablearg'. IPFW just
> replace tablearg in rule with 0
> It seems like a bug. because of it MUST work in proper way or DO NOT
> work at all. IMHO

I use tablearg with netgraph.

For example,
ipfw add netgraph tablearg all from 'table(9)' to any in

When I run ipfw show, I see:

02380         408          60358 netgraph tablearg ip from any to table(9) in
KES, do you mean to say that when you run `ipfw show' the rule is echoed
back to you as:

setfib 0 all from table(<X>) to any in recv <IFACE>

instead of tablearg?

If that's the case, it sounds like ipfw is parsing the rule incorrectly.
If tablearg isn't supported by setfib, I would expect a syntax error to
be thrown and not a different rule being inserted into your ruleset. If
this is the behavior you're seeing, you should run it by the folks on 
the -net mailing list. That would also be a good place to ask about 
future plans to support this feature.

Chris Cowart
Network Technical Lead
Network & Infrastructure Services, RSSP-IT
UC Berkeley

Attachment: pgp9RVXkdJwBy.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to