Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

ipfw: getsockopt(IP_FW_ADD): Invalid argument

253 views
Skip to first unread message

Unga

unread,
Jul 3, 2011, 11:48:32 PM7/3/11
to
Hi all

Following ipfw rule develop error indicated in the subject line:
ipfw add 100 fwd 127.0.0.1,1234 tcp from any to any 1234 out via wlan0

What I want to do is forward any packet going to port 1234 to 127.0.0.1:1234.

I have built the kernel with "options IPFIREWALL_FORWARD".

What's the error here? Is the rule incorrect?

This is FreeBSD 8.1.

Many thanks in advance.

Unga
_______________________________________________
freebsd-...@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questi...@freebsd.org"

Unga

unread,
Jul 2, 2011, 12:04:12 PM7/2/11
to
Hi all

Following ipfw rule develop error indicated in the subject line:

ipfw add 100 fwd 127.0.0.1,1234 tcp from any to any 1234 out via ath0

What I want to do is forward any packet going to port 1234 to 127.0.0.1:1234.

I have built the kernel with "options IPFIREWALL_FORWARD".

What's the error here? Is the rule incorrect?

Many thanks in advance.

Unga

unread,
Jul 4, 2011, 12:11:07 PM7/4/11
to
--- On Mon, 7/4/11, Unga <ung...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> From: Unga <ung...@yahoo.com>
> Subject: ipfw: getsockopt(IP_FW_ADD): Invalid argument
> To: freebsd-...@freebsd.org
> Date: Monday, July 4, 2011, 11:48 AM
> Hi all
>
> Following ipfw rule develop error indicated in the subject
> line:
> ipfw add 100 fwd 127.0.0.1,1234 tcp from any to any 1234

> out via wlan0


>
> What I want to do is forward any packet going to port 1234
> to 127.0.0.1:1234.
>
> I have built the kernel with "options     
>    IPFIREWALL_FORWARD".
>
> What's the error here? Is the rule incorrect?
>

> This is FreeBSD 8.1.


>
> Many thanks in advance.
>
> Unga
>

Does anybody successfully use the "ipfw fwd"? If so in which FreeBSD version?

Unga

unread,
Jul 5, 2011, 6:10:12 AM7/5/11
to
--- On Tue, 7/5/11, Ian Smith <smi...@nimnet.asn.au> wrote:

> From: Ian Smith <smi...@nimnet.asn.au>
> Subject: Re: ipfw: getsockopt(IP_FW_ADD): Invalid argument
> To: "Unga" <ung...@yahoo.com>
> Cc: freebsd-...@freebsd.org
> Date: Tuesday, July 5, 2011, 5:14 PM
> In freebsd-questions Digest, Vol 370,
> Issue 2, Message: 14

> Not I, but many do.  On the face of it the rule looks
> correct.  Do you
> have a TCP service running on localhost:1234 ?  Does
> wlan0 exist?  You
> may do better posting to the freebsd-ipfw list, with more
> information.
>
> cheers, Ian

Hi Ian

Thanks for the reply.

I do have a daemon listening to the port 1234 on the local machine.

The wlan0 exists and ip number 192.168.1.3 assigned.

I'll write the freebsd-ipfw.

Thank you.

Unga

unread,
Jul 6, 2011, 10:14:07 AM7/6/11
to

--- On Tue, 7/5/11, Ian Smith <smi...@nimnet.asn.au> wrote:

> > Does anybody successfully use the "ipfw fwd"? If so
> in which FreeBSD version?
>
> Not I, but many do.  On the face of it the rule looks
> correct.  Do you
> have a TCP service running on localhost:1234 ?  Does
> wlan0 exist?  You
> may do better posting to the freebsd-ipfw list, with more
> information.
>
> cheers, Ian

Hi Ian

I have added 'options IPFIREWALL' and rebuilt all, now 'ipfw fwd' works well.

So the 'options IPFIREWALL_FORWARD' alone is insufficient, the 'options IPFIREWALL' is also required.

Thank you and all others who helped me in this regard.

Cheers

Ian Smith

unread,
Jul 6, 2011, 10:44:37 AM7/6/11
to
On Wed, 6 Jul 2011, Unga wrote:
> On Tue, 7/5/11, Ian Smith <smi...@nimnet.asn.au> wrote:
> > > Does anybody successfully use the "ipfw fwd"? If so
> > > in which FreeBSD version?
>
> > Not I, but many do.� On the face of it the rule looks
> > correct.� Do you
> > have a TCP service running on localhost:1234 ?� Does
> > wlan0 exist?� You
> > may do better posting to the freebsd-ipfw list, with more
> > information.
>
> > cheers, Ian
>
> Hi Ian
>
> I have added 'options IPFIREWALL' and rebuilt all, now 'ipfw fwd'
> works well.
>
> So the 'options IPFIREWALL_FORWARD' alone is insufficient, the
> 'options IPFIREWALL' is also required.

Right; I guess if you're building it into kernel you have to configure
all relevant options there too. That could be more explicitly stated.

> Thank you and all others who helped me in this regard.

Glad it's working. Another win for the collective wisdom ..

cheers, Ian

0 new messages