Re: IPFW: more "orthogonal? state operations, push into 11?

2016-08-03 Thread Julian Elischer
So while thinking about states etc, it occured to me, what does THIS do on subsequent packets in the session? 10 skipto tablearg tcp from table(3) to me keep-state On 4/08/2016 11:42 AM, Julian Elischer wrote: On 4/08/2016 3:08 AM, Andrey V. Elsukov wrote: On 03.08.16 22:07, Lev

Re: IPFW: more "orthogonal? state operations, push into 11?

2016-08-03 Thread Julian Elischer
On 4/08/2016 3:08 AM, Andrey V. Elsukov wrote: On 03.08.16 22:07, Lev Serebryakov wrote: On 03.08.2016 21:03, Andrey V. Elsukov wrote: 1/ ability to use keep-state without an implicit check-state. <--- most important for me. (store-state)? 2/ ability to keep-state without actually doing it

Re: IPFW: more "orthogonal? state operations, push into 11?

2016-08-03 Thread Julian Elischer
On 4/08/2016 12:44 AM, Lev Serebryakov wrote: On 02.08.2016 09:47, Julian Elischer wrote: I don't have rights to commit my changes, and looks like I can not persuade others that my changes are Ok as-is, with all changes, made on requests from reviewers. Personally, I think, that (1) + (2)

Re: your thoughts on a particualar ipfw action.

2016-08-03 Thread Julian Elischer
Wow, this is getting to be a very useful tool. thanks for all the work. I look forward to the port.. On 4/08/2016 5:53 AM, Dr. Rolf Jansen wrote: Am 03.08.2016 um 11:13 schrieb Julian Elischer : On 2/08/2016 8:50 PM, Dr. Rolf Jansen wrote: Am 02.08.2016 um 05:08 schrieb

Re: your thoughts on a particualar ipfw action.

2016-08-03 Thread Dr. Rolf Jansen
> Am 03.08.2016 um 11:13 schrieb Julian Elischer : > > On 2/08/2016 8:50 PM, Dr. Rolf Jansen wrote: >>> Am 02.08.2016 um 05:08 schrieb Julian Elischer : >>> >>> looking for thoughts from people who know the new IPFW features well.. >>> >>> >>> A recent

Re: IPFW: more "orthogonal? state operations, push into 11?

2016-08-03 Thread Lev Serebryakov
On 03.08.2016 22:08, Andrey V. Elsukov wrote: 1/ ability to use keep-state without an implicit check-state. <--- most important for me. (store-state)? 2/ ability to keep-state without actually doing it < less important for me. >>> So, if there are nobody against, I plan to

Re: IPFW: more "orthogonal? state operations, push into 11?

2016-08-03 Thread Andrey V. Elsukov
On 03.08.16 22:07, Lev Serebryakov wrote: > On 03.08.2016 21:03, Andrey V. Elsukov wrote: > >>> 1/ ability to use keep-state without an implicit check-state. <--- most >>> important for me. (store-state)? >>> 2/ ability to keep-state without actually doing it < less important >>> for me. >>

Re: IPFW: more "orthogonal? state operations, push into 11?

2016-08-03 Thread Lev Serebryakov
On 03.08.2016 21:03, Andrey V. Elsukov wrote: >> 1/ ability to use keep-state without an implicit check-state. <--- most >> important for me. (store-state)? >> 2/ ability to keep-state without actually doing it < less important >> for me. > So, if there are nobody against, I plan to commit

Re: IPFW: more "orthogonal? state operations, push into 11?

2016-08-03 Thread Lev Serebryakov
On 02.08.2016 09:47, Julian Elischer wrote: I don't have rights to commit my changes, and looks like I can not persuade others that my changes are Ok as-is, with all changes, made on requests from reviewers. Personally, I think, that (1) + (2) is orthogonal to (3) and it should be different

Re: your thoughts on a particualar ipfw action.

2016-08-03 Thread Julian Elischer
On 2/08/2016 8:50 PM, Dr. Rolf Jansen wrote: Am 02.08.2016 um 05:08 schrieb Julian Elischer : looking for thoughts from people who know the new IPFW features well.. A recent addition to our armory is the geoip program that, given an address can tell you what country it is