On Mon, Sep 13, 2004 at 09:01:38PM +0200, Andre Oppermann wrote: > Ruslan Ermilov wrote: > > >On Mon, Sep 13, 2004 at 08:44:12PM +0200, Andre Oppermann wrote: > > > >>Ruslan Ermilov wrote: > >> > >>>On Mon, Sep 13, 2004 at 06:51:56PM +0200, Andre Oppermann wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>>>I've fixed 'ipfw tee' in 6-current. Please try it and report back. > >>>>This > >>>>is pretty useful for passive packet monitoring. > >>>> > >>> > >>>Just to make it crystal clear for everyone, the tee'd fragments are > >>>still reassembled into a full packet before the diversion, correct? > >> > >>No, they are not. Only diverted packets are reassembled, tee'd packet > >>are not. > >> > > > >Then at least the divert(4) manpage should be updated to document the > >difference in behavior (between "divert" and "tee"). > > Under BUGS the ipfw(8) man page now says only 'divert' will reassemble > the packet. The old version said both do it. So I've changed that and > removed 'tee' from it. Other than that there is no reference to this > (non-)behaviour anywhere in that man page. > I specifically said divert(4) not ipfw(8). ;) Cheers, -- Ruslan Ermilov ru_at_FreeBSD.org FreeBSD committer
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:38:11 UTC