Luigi Rizzo wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 07:57:24PM +0100, Oliver Fromme wrote:
> > Do you think this could be merged to stable/8 and stable/7?
>
> it's a trivial change to the userland program so whoever wants
> to do the merge is welcome. I should be able to merge to stable/8
> perhaps
On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 07:57:24PM +0100, Oliver Fromme wrote:
>
> Luigi Rizzo wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 09, 2010 at 03:36:15PM +0100, Oliver Fromme wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Just a question: Is the output from "ipfw list" supposed
> > > to be in the same rule format that is accepted as inp
Luigi Rizzo wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 09, 2010 at 03:36:15PM +0100, Oliver Fromme wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Just a question: Is the output from "ipfw list" supposed
> > to be in the same rule format that is accepted as input?
> > If that's the case, then there is a small bug:
> >
> > # ipfw add
On Tue, Mar 09, 2010 at 03:36:15PM +0100, Oliver Fromme wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Just a question: Is the output from "ipfw list" supposed
> to be in the same rule format that is accepted as input?
> If that's the case, then there is a small bug:
>
> # ipfw add 100 allow ip from any to '{' 1.1.1.1 or 2.2
Hi--
On Mar 10, 2010, at 3:44 AM, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
> ok this means that i need to fix the output so that it is in a form
> acceptable to be fed back to ipfw.
+1...
> I'll try to come up with a patch soon (possibly using -g as an alias for -c
> if needed)
...and thanks for being willing to s
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 12:20:33PM +0100, Oliver Fromme wrote:
> Luigi Rizzo wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 09, 2010 at 03:36:15PM +0100, Oliver Fromme wrote:
> > > Just a question: Is the output from "ipfw list" supposed
> > > to be in the same rule format that is accepted as input?
> >
> > it is n
Luigi Rizzo wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 09, 2010 at 03:36:15PM +0100, Oliver Fromme wrote:
> > Just a question: Is the output from "ipfw list" supposed
> > to be in the same rule format that is accepted as input?
>
> it is not, partly due to backward compatibility.
I see.
> If you try "ipfw -c s
On Tue, Mar 09, 2010 at 03:36:15PM +0100, Oliver Fromme wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Just a question: Is the output from "ipfw list" supposed
> to be in the same rule format that is accepted as input?
it is not, partly due to backward compatibility.
If you try "ipfw -c show" then you might have better luck
Hi,
Just a question: Is the output from "ipfw list" supposed
to be in the same rule format that is accepted as input?
If that's the case, then there is a small bug:
# ipfw add 100 allow ip from any to '{' 1.1.1.1 or 2.2.2.2 '}'
00100 allow ip from any to '{' 1.1.1.1 or dst-ip 2.2.2.2 '}'
# ipfw
