Re: ipfw -- why need to let icmp out that I already let in?

2007-10-31 Thread freebsd
Are you sure you don't have some other rule which is letting those returned packets out the other port? When I substitute your rule for my two: ipfw delete 10531 ipfw delete 10532 ipfw add 10531 allow icmp from any to any icmptypes 0,3,11,12 in The returning packets are dropped inside the

Re: ipfw -- why need to let icmp out that I already let in?

2007-10-31 Thread n j
> > add 10510 allow icmp from any to any out via oif() keep-state > > I don't think ICMP is stateful :) > > You need both in and out rules for ICMP because the logical responses to > packets can't be reliably connected into a single communication. Actually, I disagree. True, ICMP is not a stateful

Re: ipfw -- why need to let icmp out that I already let in?

2007-10-31 Thread Dan Nelson
In the last episode (Oct 31), Ivan Voras said: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > add 10510 allow icmp from any to any out via oif() keep-state > > I don't think ICMP is stateful :) > > You need both in and out rules for ICMP because the logical responses > to packets can't be reliably connected i

Re: ipfw -- why need to let icmp out that I already let in?

2007-10-30 Thread Ivan Voras
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > add 10510 allow icmp from any to any out via oif() keep-state I don't think ICMP is stateful :) You need both in and out rules for ICMP because the logical responses to packets can't be reliably connected into a single communication. signature.asc Description: Open

ipfw -- why need to let icmp out that I already let in?

2007-10-29 Thread freebsd
I'm now running 6.1 using PPPoE through a bridging DSL modem. Using ipfw I have the following rules regarding for ping / traceroute: oip, oif are the outside tun0 ip addr and interface inet, imask, and iif are the internal netip/mask/interface from ipfw.conf: # Allow pings out # Note that for