Re: Mysterious packets with stateful ipfw+nat

2006-12-02 Thread James Halstead
Ok, the obvious part that I think I was missing while it was late, was that these must be keep-alive packets generated by the firewall as the dynamic rules are about to expire. That being the case however, shouldn't these keep-alive packets take the same action as the original rule (skipto

Re: Mysterious packets with stateful ipfw+nat

2006-12-02 Thread Max Laier
On Saturday 02 December 2006 19:00, James Halstead wrote: Ok, the obvious part that I think I was missing while it was late, was that these must be keep-alive packets generated by the firewall as the dynamic rules are about to expire. That being the case however, shouldn't these keep-alive

Re: Mysterious packets with stateful ipfw+nat

2006-12-02 Thread Luigi Rizzo
On Sat, Dec 02, 2006 at 09:00:13PM +0100, Max Laier wrote: On Saturday 02 December 2006 19:00, James Halstead wrote: Ok, the obvious part that I think I was missing while it was late, was that these must be keep-alive packets generated by the firewall as the dynamic rules are about to

Re: Mysterious packets with stateful ipfw+nat

2006-12-02 Thread James Halstead
Luigi Rizzo wrote: On Sat, Dec 02, 2006 at 09:00:13PM +0100, Max Laier wrote: On Saturday 02 December 2006 19:00, James Halstead wrote: Ok, the obvious part that I think I was missing while it was late, was that these must be keep-alive packets generated by the firewall as the dynamic rules