Re: [pve-devel] firewall rules format

2014-05-19 Thread Dietmar Maurer
Just commited this change

  Yes, keep it simple
 
  in ACCEPT(MACRO) -i net0 -source 192.168.2.0 -dest 1.2.3.4 -p tcp
  -dport 80 - sport 20
 
 Ok, will go that way ;-)
___
pve-devel mailing list
pve-devel@pve.proxmox.com
http://pve.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel


Re: [pve-devel] firewall rules format

2014-05-17 Thread Dietmar Maurer
 As long as it is unique. But for now I want to keep things simple. We
 just need to decide if we move from position based arguments to named
 arguments.
 
 Yes, keep it simple
 
 in ACCEPT(MACRO) -i net0 -source 192.168.2.0 -dest 1.2.3.4 -p tcp -dport 80 -
 sport 20

Ok, will go that way ;-)
___
pve-devel mailing list
pve-devel@pve.proxmox.com
http://pve.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel


[pve-devel] firewall rules format

2014-05-16 Thread Dietmar Maurer
We currently use the following format for rules:

#TYPE ACTION IFACE SOURCE DEST PROTO D-PORT S-PORT
IN ACCEPT(MACRO) net0 192.168.2.0 1.2.3.4 tcp 80 20

This hard to write/read because you need to remember the correct order.

So I thought about using something like:

in ACCEPT(MACRO) -i net0 -source 192.168.2.0 -dest 1.2.3.4 -p tcp -dport 80 
-sport 20

This is a bit harder to parse, but it is easy to add more options in future.

What do you think?

___
pve-devel mailing list
pve-devel@pve.proxmox.com
http://pve.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel


Re: [pve-devel] firewall rules format

2014-05-16 Thread Alexandre DERUMIER
#TYPE ACTION IFACE SOURCE DEST PROTO D-PORT S-PORT 
IN ACCEPT(MACRO) net0 192.168.2.0 1.2.3.4 tcp 80 20 

This hard to write/read because you need to remember the correct order. 

So I thought about using something like: 

in ACCEPT(MACRO) -i net0 -source 192.168.2.0 -dest 1.2.3.4 -p tcp -dport 80 
-sport 20 

This is a bit harder to parse, but it is easy to add more options in future. 

What do you think? 


Yes, I Agree,  better to read indeed !

- Mail original - 

De: Dietmar Maurer diet...@proxmox.com 
À: Alexandre DERUMIER (aderum...@odiso.com) aderum...@odiso.com 
Cc: pve-devel@pve.proxmox.com 
Envoyé: Vendredi 16 Mai 2014 17:44:52 
Objet: firewall rules format 



We currently use the following format for rules: 

#TYPE ACTION IFACE SOURCE DEST PROTO D-PORT S-PORT 
IN ACCEPT(MACRO) net0 192.168.2.0 1.2.3.4 tcp 80 20 

This hard to write/read because you need to remember the correct order. 

So I thought about using something like: 

in ACCEPT(MACRO) -i net0 -source 192.168.2.0 -dest 1.2.3.4 -p tcp -dport 80 
-sport 20 

This is a bit harder to parse, but it is easy to add more options in future. 

What do you think? 
___
pve-devel mailing list
pve-devel@pve.proxmox.com
http://pve.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel


Re: [pve-devel] firewall rules format

2014-05-16 Thread Michael Rasmussen
On Fri, 16 May 2014 15:44:52 +
Dietmar Maurer diet...@proxmox.com wrote:

 We currently use the following format for rules:
 
 #TYPE ACTION IFACE SOURCE DEST PROTO D-PORT S-PORT
 IN ACCEPT(MACRO) net0 192.168.2.0 1.2.3.4 tcp 80 20
 
 This hard to write/read because you need to remember the correct order.
 
 So I thought about using something like:
 
 in ACCEPT(MACRO) -i net0 -source 192.168.2.0 -dest 1.2.3.4 -p tcp -dport 80 
 -sport 20
 
 This is a bit harder to parse, but it is easy to add more options in future.
 
 What do you think?
 
Why not stick to the iptables format?
in ACCEPT(MACRO) -i net0 -s 192.168.2.0 -d 1.2.3.4 -p tcp -dport 80
-sport 20

-- 
Hilsen/Regards
Michael Rasmussen

Get my public GnuPG keys:
michael at rasmussen dot cc
http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=getsearch=0xD3C9A00E
mir at datanom dot net
http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=getsearch=0xE501F51C
mir at miras dot org
http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=getsearch=0xE3E80917
--
/usr/games/fortune -es says:
Dime is money.


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
pve-devel mailing list
pve-devel@pve.proxmox.com
http://pve.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel


Re: [pve-devel] firewall rules format

2014-05-16 Thread Dietmar Maurer
 Why not stick to the iptables format?
 in ACCEPT(MACRO) -i net0 -s 192.168.2.0 -d 1.2.3.4 -p tcp -dport 80 -sport 20

beaucse we cannot provide full iptables functionality, and iptables format
is really clumsy (for example multiport maches, ipsets, ...).

But above syntax is basically iptables format, with some simplifications ;-) 
Or what would you change exactly?


___
pve-devel mailing list
pve-devel@pve.proxmox.com
http://pve.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel


Re: [pve-devel] firewall rules format

2014-05-16 Thread Dietmar Maurer
  Why not stick to the iptables format?
  in ACCEPT(MACRO) -i net0 -s 192.168.2.0 -d 1.2.3.4 -p tcp -dport 80
  -sport 20
 
 beaucse we cannot provide full iptables functionality, and iptables format is
 really clumsy (for example multiport maches, ipsets, ...).

For example, we want to write:

- dport 80
- dport 135,139,445

instead of:

--dport 80
--match multiport --dports 135,139,445



___
pve-devel mailing list
pve-devel@pve.proxmox.com
http://pve.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel


Re: [pve-devel] firewall rules format

2014-05-16 Thread Dietmar Maurer


 -Original Message-
 From: pve-devel [mailto:pve-devel-boun...@pve.proxmox.com] On Behalf Of
 Dietmar Maurer
 Sent: Freitag, 16. Mai 2014 19:20
 To: Michael Rasmussen; pve-devel@pve.proxmox.com
 Subject: Re: [pve-devel] firewall rules format
 
   Why not stick to the iptables format?

Or maybe something similar to nftables (iptables is already dead?)

... saddr 192.168.56.0/24 dport 80


___
pve-devel mailing list
pve-devel@pve.proxmox.com
http://pve.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel


Re: [pve-devel] firewall rules format

2014-05-16 Thread Michael Rasmussen
On Fri, 16 May 2014 17:01:19 +
Dietmar Maurer diet...@proxmox.com wrote:

 
 beaucse we cannot provide full iptables functionality, and iptables format
 is really clumsy (for example multiport maches, ipsets, ...).
 
True.
 But above syntax is basically iptables format, with some simplifications ;-) 
 Or what would you change exactly?
 
-source - -s
-dest   - -d


-- 
Hilsen/Regards
Michael Rasmussen

Get my public GnuPG keys:
michael at rasmussen dot cc
http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=getsearch=0xD3C9A00E
mir at datanom dot net
http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=getsearch=0xE501F51C
mir at miras dot org
http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=getsearch=0xE3E80917
--
/usr/games/fortune -es says:
Get in touch with your feelings of hostility against the dying light.
-- Dylan Thomas [paraphrased periphrastically]


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
pve-devel mailing list
pve-devel@pve.proxmox.com
http://pve.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel


Re: [pve-devel] firewall rules format

2014-05-16 Thread Dietmar Maurer
  But above syntax is basically iptables format, with some
  simplifications ;-) Or what would you change exactly?
 
 -source - -s
 -dest   - -d

The getopt-long parser usually accept several option format, like:

--source
-source
-s

As long as it is unique. But for now I want to keep things simple. We just need 
to 
decide if we move from position based arguments to named arguments.

___
pve-devel mailing list
pve-devel@pve.proxmox.com
http://pve.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel


Re: [pve-devel] firewall rules format

2014-05-16 Thread Michael Rasmussen
On Fri, 16 May 2014 17:50:22 +
Dietmar Maurer diet...@proxmox.com wrote:

 The getopt-long parser usually accept several option format, like:
 
 --source
 -source
 -s
 
 As long as it is unique. But for now I want to keep things simple. We just 
 need to 
 decide if we move from position based arguments to named arguments.
 
Ok. I agree that position based options is a pain which should be
avoided at all cost.

-- 
Hilsen/Regards
Michael Rasmussen

Get my public GnuPG keys:
michael at rasmussen dot cc
http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=getsearch=0xD3C9A00E
mir at datanom dot net
http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=getsearch=0xE501F51C
mir at miras dot org
http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=getsearch=0xE3E80917
--
/usr/games/fortune -es says:
Our way is peace.
-- Septimus, the Son Worshiper, Bread and Circuses,
   stardate 4040.7.


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
pve-devel mailing list
pve-devel@pve.proxmox.com
http://pve.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel


Re: [pve-devel] firewall rules format

2014-05-16 Thread Alexandre DERUMIER
As long as it is unique. But for now I want to keep things simple. We just 
need to 
decide if we move from position based arguments to named arguments.

Yes, keep it simple

in ACCEPT(MACRO) -i net0 -source 192.168.2.0 -dest 1.2.3.4 -p tcp -dport 80 
-sport 20

seem to be enough

- Mail original - 

De: Dietmar Maurer diet...@proxmox.com 
À: Michael Rasmussen m...@datanom.net, pve-devel@pve.proxmox.com 
Envoyé: Vendredi 16 Mai 2014 19:50:22 
Objet: Re: [pve-devel] firewall rules format 

  But above syntax is basically iptables format, with some 
  simplifications ;-) Or what would you change exactly? 
  
 -source - -s 
 -dest - -d 

The getopt-long parser usually accept several option format, like: 

--source 
-source 
-s 

As long as it is unique. But for now I want to keep things simple. We just need 
to 
decide if we move from position based arguments to named arguments. 

___ 
pve-devel mailing list 
pve-devel@pve.proxmox.com 
http://pve.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel 
___
pve-devel mailing list
pve-devel@pve.proxmox.com
http://pve.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel