On 15.08.2016 9:11, Ian Smith wrote:
> One thing I wondered about earlier but didn't ask is that the order of
> options is generally not relevant, so for example the commonly used:
>
> ipfw add skipto $somewhere tcp from $a to $b setup keep-state
>
> would currently be equally valid as:
>
>
On Mon, 15 Aug 2016 02:20:19 +0300, Lev Serebryakov wrote:
> > Please, change this to some prefix to state name (:name, @name or
> > something
> > like this) or to "state-action(name)" format. It will be much better: less
> > error-prone and will work without ugly warnings on old rulesets.
On 14.08.16 20:27, Lev Serebryakov wrote:
> But looks like, that comment is lost here, here is output of "ipfw show"
> after boot:
>
> 13050 0 0 nat 2 ip from any to any // De-NAT
> 13060 0 0 check-state default
> 13070 0 0 skipto 3 ip from any to any // Allowed
Hello Lev,
Sunday, August 14, 2016, 8:20:16 PM, you wrote:
> Line 155: Ambiguous state name '//', 'default' used instead.
> : No error: 0
> 0 check-state default
Ok, really this one is (no rule number, I'm rely on auto-numbering):
add nat 2 // De-NAT
add check-state // Make
