Re: [fw-wiz] Rationale for BSD (I)PF rule order?

From: Holger Kipp (Holger.Kipp_at_alogis.com)
Date: 05/11/03

  • Next message: Ben Nagy: "RE: [fw-wiz] Rationale for BSD (I)PF rule order?"
    To: mikael.olsson@clavister.com, holger.kipp@alogis.com
    Date: Sun, 11 May 2003 00:58:18 +0000
    

    Mikael Olsson (mikael.olsson@clavister.com) wrote:
    >Holger Kipp wrote:
    >> For me it is easier to create a treelike strukture of rules using head and
    >> group and going from coarse to fine grained rules. With linear rules (first
    >> match), ordering of rules is more important, and with 20+ rules you get
    >> problems with side effects (rule 20 is never evaluated because rule 8 will
    >> fire first.
    >
    >Please.. I'm missing something. I feel I really must be missing
    >something, because this is not making sense to me.

    I was refering to the possibility of grouping rules using "head" and
    "group" (this is with Daren Reeds ipf). "man 5 ipf" might help ;-)

    In principle you can do everything with first match rules, but if you
    have to change rules, you have to look at all the other rules to be
    sure they are not affected, so you don't need to rearange them. Using
    head and group helps keeping affected rulesets small.

    'quick' is equal to 'first match'. Without it, one can define the
    desired behaviour, but redefine it again later, if needed.

    >Would someone _please_ tell me _how_ this differs from a last-match
    >ruleset where rule 1 never does anything because rule 8 always
    >overrides it? Except for the first-match ruleset reaching the
    >same wrong conclusion faster, that is?

    If you don't use quick, then it is a last-match-ruleset.

    >Granted, mixed-mode lookups (i.e. using the "quick" keyword in a few
    >places) could potentially get you out of trouble caused by a badly
    >structured ruleset. But mixing in too much of this, with a worst-case
    >fustercluck of 50%/50% quick/non-quick, just strikes me as a disaster
    >waiting to happen; especially so in a multiple-admin situation.

    Having to change rules every few days is a tedious task with a linear
    list of first match-rules. I bet you'll end up with a badly structured
    ruleset very fast 8-P. I have experienced exactly that with a simple
    training ruleset for a Checkpoint Firewall 1.
      Anyway, I think you were missing the possibilities "head" and "group"
    offer.

    just my 2 cents (Euro)

    Regards,
    Holger Kipp
    _______________________________________________
    firewall-wizards mailing list
    firewall-wizards@honor.icsalabs.com
    http://honor.icsalabs.com/mailman/listinfo/firewall-wizards


  • Next message: Ben Nagy: "RE: [fw-wiz] Rationale for BSD (I)PF rule order?"

    Relevant Pages

    • Re: A silly suggestion for future pinball gameplay...
      ... idea to pop in my head, that probably has been thought of before... ... between and easy and a difficult ruleset? ...  'master level', and 'putz level' come to ... memory space capable of a lot more complex/creative firmware than is ...
      (rec.games.pinball)
    • Re: A silly suggestion for future pinball gameplay...
      ... idea to pop in my head, that probably has been thought of before... ... between and easy and a difficult ruleset? ...  'master level', and 'putz level' come to ... I think Who?Dunnit came with a novice mode, ...
      (rec.games.pinball)
    • Re: POLL: Best game to compete head to head with a friend(s)?
      ... Head" experience when playing with friends? ... I would consider games with short ball times, fast flow, and an easy ... to understand ruleset to be the most conducive to fun head to head ... But Eight ball deluxe is great for a older SS ...
      (rec.games.pinball)
    • Re: POLL: Best game to compete head to head with a friend(s)?
      ... Head" experience when playing with friends? ... I would consider games with short ball times, fast flow, and an easy ... to understand ruleset to be the most conducive to fun head to head ...
      (rec.games.pinball)