Nabble - fwbuilder-discussion

Re: Opinion poll

2009-11-23T00:07:43Z

Me too in favour of the undo function/button

Joost

-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Diehl [mailto:tdiehl@...]
Sent: maandag 23 november 2009 2:42
To: fwbuilder-discussion@...
Subject: Re: [Fwbuilder-discussion] Opinion poll

On Sun, 15 Nov 2009, phall@... wrote:

> We use fwbuilder with RCS and always have it configured to save
> automatically. I think the undo concept you describe with immediate
> effect is the way to go.

I too use it this way. I have on numerous occasions wished for an undo
button
or command. So +1 for the immediate save with <ctrl> Z.

Regards,

--
Tom Diehl tdiehl@... Spamtrap address
mtd123@...

>
> -price
>
> Quoting Vadim Kurland <vadim@...>:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> We are actively working on Undo for the Firewall Builder v4.0 GUI and
we
>> think of changing the way object editor operates to make it more
logical and
>> easier integrated with Undo facility. The idea is to make the editor
apply
>> changes to the object's attribute immediately when user types
something in
>> the entry field and hits Enter or switches focus to another entry
field. The
>> "Apply" button will be removed if this is done. You just edit a name
or
>> comment or port number etc and hit Enter and it is saved right away
into the
>> object and also added to the Undo stack so you can roll it back using
>> Ctrl-Z. This is standard behavior, this is how many other programs
work.
>>
>> The alternative is to switch to the modal dialog for the editor, but
that
>> seems very intrusive and requires lot more clicks to edit something.
If it
>> is modal, it won't let you do anything else until you finish your
changes
>> and hit Cancel or Apply. I do not like this idea, but I like the
first idea
>> much better (when changes are applied immediately when you hit Enter
or

>> switch focus).
>>
>> What do you think ?
>>
>> --vk
>>
>
>
>
>
>

------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
> Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008
30-Day
> trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and
focus on
> what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with
> Crystal Reports now. http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july
> _______________________________________________
> Fwbuilder-discussion mailing list
> Fwbuilder-discussion@...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fwbuilder-discussion
>

------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008
30-Day
trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and
focus on
what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with
Crystal Reports now. http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july
_______________________________________________
Fwbuilder-discussion mailing list
Fwbuilder-discussion@...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fwbuilder-discussion

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day
trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus on
what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with
Crystal Reports now. http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july
_______________________________________________
Fwbuilder-discussion mailing list
Fwbuilder-discussion@...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fwbuilder-discussion

Re: Opinion poll

2009-11-22T17:42:29Z

On Sun, 15 Nov 2009, phall@... wrote:

> We use fwbuilder with RCS and always have it configured to save
> automatically. I think the undo concept you describe with immediate
> effect is the way to go.

I too use it this way. I have on numerous occasions wished for an undo button
or command. So +1 for the immediate save with <ctrl> Z.

Regards,

--
Tom Diehl tdiehl@... Spamtrap address mtd123@...

>
> -price
>
> Quoting Vadim Kurland <vadim@...>:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> We are actively working on Undo for the Firewall Builder v4.0 GUI and we
>> think of changing the way object editor operates to make it more logical and
>> easier integrated with Undo facility. The idea is to make the editor apply
>> changes to the object's attribute immediately when user types something in
>> the entry field and hits Enter or switches focus to another entry field. The
>> "Apply" button will be removed if this is done. You just edit a name or
>> comment or port number etc and hit Enter and it is saved right away into the
>> object and also added to the Undo stack so you can roll it back using
>> Ctrl-Z. This is standard behavior, this is how many other programs work.
>>
>> The alternative is to switch to the modal dialog for the editor, but that
>> seems very intrusive and requires lot more clicks to edit something. If it
>> is modal, it won't let you do anything else until you finish your changes
>> and hit Cancel or Apply. I do not like this idea, but I like the first idea
>> much better (when changes are applied immediately when you hit Enter or
>> switch focus).
>>
>> What do you think ?
>>
>> --vk
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day
> trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus on
> what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with
> Crystal Reports now. http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july
> _______________________________________________
> Fwbuilder-discussion mailing list
> Fwbuilder-discussion@...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fwbuilder-discussion
>

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day
trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus on
what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with
Crystal Reports now. http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july
_______________________________________________
Fwbuilder-discussion mailing list
Fwbuilder-discussion@...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fwbuilder-discussion

Re: Opinion poll

2009-11-21T01:12:58Z

Vadim Kurland wrote:

> To be honest, this does not represent great users participation since
> only 14 people participated in the discussion out of 400+ subscribers of
> the list, but this is what we have to work with.

Don't be despondent, I suspect the 386+ non-voters have no strong
preference. They probably feel they can trust you to do the right thing;
after all, you have done an outstanding job so far.

Dick

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day
trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus on
what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with
Crystal Reports now. http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july
_______________________________________________
Fwbuilder-discussion mailing list
Fwbuilder-discussion@...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fwbuilder-discussion

Re: Opinion poll

2009-11-20T15:51:28Z

It is Friday and I promised to post results by the end of the day Tuesday. Lets just say I gave it few more days, in case someone reads mailing list in a digest and wanted to reply.

Final vote count is as follows:

"For" the idea to get rid of the "Apply" button and apply changes made in the dialog to the object immediately:

"Against" that and "for" the idea of turning object editor into a modal dialog:

To be honest, this does not represent great users participation since only 14 people participated in the discussion out of 400+ subscribers of the list, but this is what we have to work with.

Immediate apply option it is going to be. I can promise to add some safeguards against accidental changes. It is hard to make full-proof but I hope a scrolling "changelog"-like window will help. I am going to have a test build available in a few of days. The Undo feature progresses well but we still need to do a lot of work there.

--vk

On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 9:29 AM, Vadim Kurland <vadim@...> wrote:

Hi all,

We are actively working on Undo for the Firewall Builder v4.0 GUI and we think of changing the way object editor operates to make it more logical and easier integrated with Undo facility. The idea is to make the editor apply changes to the object's attribute immediately when user types something in the entry field and hits Enter or switches focus to another entry field. The "Apply" button will be removed if this is done. You just edit a name or comment or port number etc and hit Enter and it is saved right away into the object and also added to the Undo stack so you can roll it back using Ctrl-Z. This is standard behavior, this is how many other programs work.

The alternative is to switch to the modal dialog for the editor, but that seems very intrusive and requires lot more clicks to edit something. If it is modal, it won't let you do anything else until you finish your changes and hit Cancel or Apply. I do not like this idea, but I like the first idea much better (when changes are applied immediately when you hit Enter or switch focus).

What do you think ?

--vk

Re: Opinion poll

2009-11-17T05:09:20Z

Sounds great to me.

On Nov 16, 2009, at 7:56 PM, "Vadim Kurland" <vadim@...> wrote:

Here is an idea for a facility to help catch accidental changes:

I can add new docked window that would show objects modified in the current session. That is, you start the program and this window is blank. As you modify objects, their names appear in this window. If you modify an object twice, it will appear there only once (this is the difference between this window and undo stack display). We can't save this information to the data file for a number of technical reasons, so it will show only changes done since the program start. But I feel this can be a better way to catch accidental changes. Also, since it is going to be implemented as docked window, those who do not want it can simply close it.

What do you think ?

--vk

On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 3:07 AM, Alexander Runge <runge@...> wrote:

Me too would favor the auto-apply option. Still I do share the concerns of
unwanted changes.
How about this one: before saving a ruleset you get a list of all
changes applied (the content of the
undo list) which can then be confirmed or rejected.

alex

Chris E. Hendrickson schrieb:

> I will toss in a vote for the immediate apply and undo (and redo?) as
> well. Maybe a good compromise for the anti-auto-apply people might be
> a setting to switch between the two behaviors.
>
> On Nov 15, 2009, at 5:55 PM, "Vadim Kurland" <vadim@...

> <mailto:vadim@...>> wrote:
>
>>
>> Chris, I see your point.
>>
>>
>> So far I have 4 "for" immediate saving of the changes and 1 "against" it.
>>
>> I need more votes to make the decision. We are trying to design the
>> Undo function in a such way that it would work regardless of the
>> editor design. So this opinion poll is not about how Undo should
>> work, it is about how the editor should work.
>>
>> To reiterate, there are two major ways to implement object editor:
>>
>> 1) You type in the input field in the editor, hit Enter or click on
>> another input field, and the change immediately saved into the object
>> and added to the Undo stack. You can roll changes back one by one.
>>
>> 2) the GUI offers small panel that shows object properties and has
>> button "Edit". Clicking on this button opens object editor in a modal
>> dialog, you can't do anything else until you click Cancel or OK in it.
>>
>> As I said, Undo will work either way. In the case (1) it will roll
>> back change done to one attribute of the object, while in case (2) it
>> will roll back all changes done in the editor while it was opened.
>>
>> Note that even in the case (1) changes made in the "advanced
>> settings" dialogs will be rolled back as a batch because these
>> dialogs are already modal.
>>
>> I am going to make final decision by the end of the day Tuesday (my
>> time, Pacific Time Zone) by counting votes cast for (1) or (2). The
>> 5 votes I have so far count, unless you guys want to change your mind.
>>
>> --vk
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 1:57 PM, Chris Martin <chris@...

>> <mailto:chris@...>> wrote:
>>
>> Personally, I prefer the Modal Dialog Box
>>
>> (1) It prevents accidental modification of the object
>> (2) It encourages you to "review" you setting before you select
>> "apply"
>>
>> I find that I don't modify objects very often. Its the rule-set
>> that I am always changing, so an extra click or two in the object
>> editor is OK..
>>
>> I find in X that there are many applications that could benefit
>> from Modal Dialog Boxes for editing
>>
>> In my view, its best to display the object in a summary window,
>> with an edit button. The edit window should be modal. This way
>> no one forgets to apply changes. The display window takes less
>> screen space (good for use with net-books). The edit window
>> overlays the application, focusing attention of the object, and
>> forcing a commit.
>>
>> My 2c worth
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>> Chris Martin
>> m: 0419812371
>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 8:17 AM, Frank Tanner

>> <pctech@... <mailto:pctech@...>> wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 2009-11-15 at 09:29 -0800, Vadim Kurland wrote:
>> > Hi all,
>> >
>> >
>> > We are actively working on Undo for the Firewall Builder
>> v4.0 GUI and
>> > we think of changing the way object editor operates to make
>> it more
>> > logical and easier integrated with Undo facility. The idea
>> is to make
>> > the editor apply changes to the object's attribute
>> immediately when
>> > user types something in the entry field and hits Enter or
>> switches
>> > focus to another entry field. The "Apply" button will be
>> removed if
>> > this is done. You just edit a name or comment or port
>> number etc and
>> > hit Enter and it is saved right away into the object and
>> also added to
>> > the Undo stack so you can roll it back using Ctrl-Z. This
>> is standard
>> > behavior, this is how many other programs work.
>> >
>> >
>> > The alternative is to switch to the modal dialog for the
>> editor, but
>> > that seems very intrusive and requires lot more clicks to edit
>> > something. If it is modal, it won't let you do anything
>> else until you
>> > finish your changes and hit Cancel or Apply. I do not like
>> this idea,
>> > but I like the first idea much better (when changes are applied
>> > immediately when you hit Enter or switch focus).
>> >
>> >
>> > What do you think ?
>> >
>>
>> I like the first idea as well.
>>
>> >
>> > --vk
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal
>> Reports 2008 30-Day
>> > trial. Simplify your report design, integration and
>> deployment - and focus on
>> > what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's
>> new with
>> > Crystal Reports now. http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july
>> > _______________________________________________
>> Fwbuilder-discussion mailing list
>> Fwbuilder-discussion@...

>> <mailto:Fwbuilder-discussion@...>

>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fwbuilder-discussion
>> --
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------
>> Frank Tanner III (pctech@...

>> <mailto:pctech@...>)
>>
>> ICQ: 1730844
>> AIM: KalokSundancer
>> MSN: pctech@... <mailto:pctech@...>

>> YIM: fbtanner
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal
>> Reports 2008 30-Day
>> trial. Simplify your report design, integration and
>> deployment - and focus on
>> what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's
>> new with
>> Crystal Reports now. http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july
>> _______________________________________________
>> Fwbuilder-discussion mailing list
>> Fwbuilder-discussion@...

>> <mailto:Fwbuilder-discussion@...>

>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fwbuilder-discussion
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports
>> 2008 30-Day
>> trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment -
>> and focus on
>> what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with
>> Crystal Reports now. http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july
>> _______________________________________________
>> Fwbuilder-discussion mailing list
>> Fwbuilder-discussion@...

>> <mailto:Fwbuilder-discussion@...>

>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fwbuilder-discussion
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008
>> 30-Day
>> trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and
>> focus on
>> what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with
>> Crystal Reports now. http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july
>> _______________________________________________
>> Fwbuilder-discussion mailing list
>> Fwbuilder-discussion@...

>> <mailto:Fwbuilder-discussion@...>

>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fwbuilder-discussion
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day
> trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus on
> what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with
> Crystal Reports now. http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Fwbuilder-discussion mailing list
> Fwbuilder-discussion@...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fwbuilder-discussion
>

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day
trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus on
what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with
Crystal Reports now. http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july
_______________________________________________
Fwbuilder-discussion mailing list
Fwbuilder-discussion@...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fwbuilder-discussion

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day
trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus on
what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with
Crystal Reports now. http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july

_______________________________________________
Fwbuilder-discussion mailing list
Fwbuilder-discussion@...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fwbuilder-discussion

Re: Opinion poll

2009-11-16T16:51:20Z

Here is an idea for a facility to help catch accidental changes:

I can add new docked window that would show objects modified in the current session. That is, you start the program and this window is blank. As you modify objects, their names appear in this window. If you modify an object twice, it will appear there only once (this is the difference between this window and undo stack display). We can't save this information to the data file for a number of technical reasons, so it will show only changes done since the program start. But I feel this can be a better way to catch accidental changes. Also, since it is going to be implemented as docked window, those who do not want it can simply close it.

What do you think ?

--vk

On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 3:07 AM, Alexander Runge <runge@...> wrote:

Me too would favor the auto-apply option. Still I do share the concerns of
unwanted changes.
How about this one: before saving a ruleset you get a list of all
changes applied (the content of the
undo list) which can then be confirmed or rejected.

alex

Chris E. Hendrickson schrieb:

> I will toss in a vote for the immediate apply and undo (and redo?) as
> well. Maybe a good compromise for the anti-auto-apply people might be
> a setting to switch between the two behaviors.
>
> On Nov 15, 2009, at 5:55 PM, "Vadim Kurland" <vadim@...

> <mailto:vadim@...>> wrote:
>
>>
>> Chris, I see your point.
>>
>>
>> So far I have 4 "for" immediate saving of the changes and 1 "against" it.
>>
>> I need more votes to make the decision. We are trying to design the
>> Undo function in a such way that it would work regardless of the
>> editor design. So this opinion poll is not about how Undo should
>> work, it is about how the editor should work.
>>
>> To reiterate, there are two major ways to implement object editor:
>>
>> 1) You type in the input field in the editor, hit Enter or click on
>> another input field, and the change immediately saved into the object
>> and added to the Undo stack. You can roll changes back one by one.
>>
>> 2) the GUI offers small panel that shows object properties and has
>> button "Edit". Clicking on this button opens object editor in a modal
>> dialog, you can't do anything else until you click Cancel or OK in it.
>>
>> As I said, Undo will work either way. In the case (1) it will roll
>> back change done to one attribute of the object, while in case (2) it
>> will roll back all changes done in the editor while it was opened.
>>
>> Note that even in the case (1) changes made in the "advanced
>> settings" dialogs will be rolled back as a batch because these
>> dialogs are already modal.
>>
>> I am going to make final decision by the end of the day Tuesday (my
>> time, Pacific Time Zone) by counting votes cast for (1) or (2). The
>> 5 votes I have so far count, unless you guys want to change your mind.
>>
>> --vk
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 1:57 PM, Chris Martin <chris@...

>> <mailto:chris@...>> wrote:
>>
>> Personally, I prefer the Modal Dialog Box
>>
>> (1) It prevents accidental modification of the object
>> (2) It encourages you to "review" you setting before you select
>> "apply"
>>
>> I find that I don't modify objects very often. Its the rule-set
>> that I am always changing, so an extra click or two in the object
>> editor is OK..
>>
>> I find in X that there are many applications that could benefit
>> from Modal Dialog Boxes for editing
>>
>> In my view, its best to display the object in a summary window,
>> with an edit button. The edit window should be modal. This way
>> no one forgets to apply changes. The display window takes less
>> screen space (good for use with net-books). The edit window
>> overlays the application, focusing attention of the object, and
>> forcing a commit.
>>
>> My 2c worth
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>> Chris Martin
>> m: 0419812371
>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 8:17 AM, Frank Tanner

>> <pctech@... <mailto:pctech@...>> wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 2009-11-15 at 09:29 -0800, Vadim Kurland wrote:
>> > Hi all,
>> >
>> >
>> > We are actively working on Undo for the Firewall Builder
>> v4.0 GUI and
>> > we think of changing the way object editor operates to make
>> it more
>> > logical and easier integrated with Undo facility. The idea
>> is to make
>> > the editor apply changes to the object's attribute
>> immediately when
>> > user types something in the entry field and hits Enter or
>> switches
>> > focus to another entry field. The "Apply" button will be
>> removed if
>> > this is done. You just edit a name or comment or port
>> number etc and
>> > hit Enter and it is saved right away into the object and
>> also added to
>> > the Undo stack so you can roll it back using Ctrl-Z. This
>> is standard
>> > behavior, this is how many other programs work.
>> >
>> >
>> > The alternative is to switch to the modal dialog for the
>> editor, but
>> > that seems very intrusive and requires lot more clicks to edit
>> > something. If it is modal, it won't let you do anything
>> else until you
>> > finish your changes and hit Cancel or Apply. I do not like
>> this idea,
>> > but I like the first idea much better (when changes are applied
>> > immediately when you hit Enter or switch focus).
>> >
>> >
>> > What do you think ?
>> >
>>
>> I like the first idea as well.
>>
>> >
>> > --vk
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal
>> Reports 2008 30-Day
>> > trial. Simplify your report design, integration and
>> deployment - and focus on
>> > what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's
>> new with
>> > Crystal Reports now. http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july
>> > _______________________________________________
>> Fwbuilder-discussion mailing list
>> Fwbuilder-discussion@...

>> <mailto:Fwbuilder-discussion@...>

>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fwbuilder-discussion
>> --
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------
>> Frank Tanner III (pctech@...

>> <mailto:pctech@...>)
>>
>> ICQ: 1730844
>> AIM: KalokSundancer
>> MSN: pctech@... <mailto:pctech@...>

>> YIM: fbtanner
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal
>> Reports 2008 30-Day
>> trial. Simplify your report design, integration and
>> deployment - and focus on
>> what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's
>> new with
>> Crystal Reports now. http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july
>> _______________________________________________
>> Fwbuilder-discussion mailing list
>> Fwbuilder-discussion@...

>> <mailto:Fwbuilder-discussion@...>

>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fwbuilder-discussion
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports
>> 2008 30-Day
>> trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment -
>> and focus on
>> what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with
>> Crystal Reports now. http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july
>> _______________________________________________
>> Fwbuilder-discussion mailing list
>> Fwbuilder-discussion@...

>> <mailto:Fwbuilder-discussion@...>

>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fwbuilder-discussion
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008
>> 30-Day
>> trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and
>> focus on
>> what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with
>> Crystal Reports now. http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july
>> _______________________________________________
>> Fwbuilder-discussion mailing list
>> Fwbuilder-discussion@...

>> <mailto:Fwbuilder-discussion@...>

>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fwbuilder-discussion
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day
> trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus on
> what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with
> Crystal Reports now. http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Fwbuilder-discussion mailing list
> Fwbuilder-discussion@...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fwbuilder-discussion
>

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day
trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus on
what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with
Crystal Reports now. http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july
_______________________________________________
Fwbuilder-discussion mailing list
Fwbuilder-discussion@...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fwbuilder-discussion

Re: Default action on rule creation.

2009-11-16T09:21:39Z

On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 7:17 AM, Nablas <nablas@...> wrote:

Hello everybody:

¿Is it possible to change the default action (DROP) on rule creation?

No, this is not possible. However you can copy some rule and then create new rules by using Paste. The rule you copied can have any action you want.

--vk

Re: Opinion poll

2009-11-16T09:21:18Z

Hi,

There are three users of fwbuilder in this team. Predictably, we have three different opinions.

[a] One of us would like to retain the "Apply" process to ensure that he concentrates on each step of the process.

[b] One would support Vadim's first proposal, used alongside "auto-save" and the existing "Commit" RCS integration.

[c] The third would like undo to use the modal implementation, as it stops screen clutter. To explain: if you do an "Object | Find Object" followed by an "Edit Object" both result panels use space below the rules window. Users can't move these panels and it makes the screen much more confusing especially for new users. The "Apply" button (if you don't have auto-save on switch dialogs on) does simply the process of building rules by providing a logical approach.

In summary, 1 vote for Vadim's "Immediate Apply" proposal, 2 votes for "Modal Dialog" implementation.

Regards - Steve.

Stephen H F Ralph

Principal Computer Officer | Integration Team | ICT Services | Transform Sandwell

Sandwell MBC | Freeth Street | Oldbury | West Midlands | B69 3DE

Tel: 0121 569 3132 | Fax: 0121 569 3493

Email: steve_ralph@...

Re: Opinion poll

2009-11-16T09:06:54Z

On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 3:07 AM, Alexander Runge <runge@...> wrote:

Me too would favor the auto-apply option. Still I do share the concerns of
unwanted changes.
How about this one: before saving a ruleset you get a list of all
changes applied (the content of the
undo list) which can then be confirmed or rejected.

the problem with this is that rule set is already auto-saved and has always been, so there is no clearly defined moment when to show such list. We need this 1) to show the list and 2) to reset it so that when rules are saved next time, the program shows changes since last save. It does not look like this feature is feasible.

I am going to add a scroll of the undo stack which will show all changes since the GUI started. Changes made to the rules will appear in this list as well. Lets try this, we'll see how helpful it is.

--vk

alex

Chris E. Hendrickson schrieb:

> I will toss in a vote for the immediate apply and undo (and redo?) as
> well. Maybe a good compromise for the anti-auto-apply people might be
> a setting to switch between the two behaviors.
>
> On Nov 15, 2009, at 5:55 PM, "Vadim Kurland" <vadim@...

> <mailto:vadim@...>> wrote:
>
>>
>> Chris, I see your point.
>>
>>
>> So far I have 4 "for" immediate saving of the changes and 1 "against" it.
>>
>> I need more votes to make the decision. We are trying to design the
>> Undo function in a such way that it would work regardless of the
>> editor design. So this opinion poll is not about how Undo should
>> work, it is about how the editor should work.
>>
>> To reiterate, there are two major ways to implement object editor:
>>
>> 1) You type in the input field in the editor, hit Enter or click on
>> another input field, and the change immediately saved into the object
>> and added to the Undo stack. You can roll changes back one by one.
>>
>> 2) the GUI offers small panel that shows object properties and has
>> button "Edit". Clicking on this button opens object editor in a modal
>> dialog, you can't do anything else until you click Cancel or OK in it.
>>
>> As I said, Undo will work either way. In the case (1) it will roll
>> back change done to one attribute of the object, while in case (2) it
>> will roll back all changes done in the editor while it was opened.
>>
>> Note that even in the case (1) changes made in the "advanced
>> settings" dialogs will be rolled back as a batch because these
>> dialogs are already modal.
>>
>> I am going to make final decision by the end of the day Tuesday (my
>> time, Pacific Time Zone) by counting votes cast for (1) or (2). The
>> 5 votes I have so far count, unless you guys want to change your mind.
>>
>> --vk
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 1:57 PM, Chris Martin <chris@...

>> <mailto:chris@...>> wrote:
>>
>> Personally, I prefer the Modal Dialog Box
>>
>> (1) It prevents accidental modification of the object
>> (2) It encourages you to "review" you setting before you select
>> "apply"
>>
>> I find that I don't modify objects very often. Its the rule-set
>> that I am always changing, so an extra click or two in the object
>> editor is OK..
>>
>> I find in X that there are many applications that could benefit
>> from Modal Dialog Boxes for editing
>>
>> In my view, its best to display the object in a summary window,
>> with an edit button. The edit window should be modal. This way
>> no one forgets to apply changes. The display window takes less
>> screen space (good for use with net-books). The edit window
>> overlays the application, focusing attention of the object, and
>> forcing a commit.
>>
>> My 2c worth
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>> Chris Martin
>> m: 0419812371
>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 8:17 AM, Frank Tanner

>> <pctech@... <mailto:pctech@...>> wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 2009-11-15 at 09:29 -0800, Vadim Kurland wrote:
>> > Hi all,
>> >
>> >
>> > We are actively working on Undo for the Firewall Builder
>> v4.0 GUI and
>> > we think of changing the way object editor operates to make
>> it more
>> > logical and easier integrated with Undo facility. The idea
>> is to make
>> > the editor apply changes to the object's attribute
>> immediately when
>> > user types something in the entry field and hits Enter or
>> switches
>> > focus to another entry field. The "Apply" button will be
>> removed if
>> > this is done. You just edit a name or comment or port
>> number etc and
>> > hit Enter and it is saved right away into the object and
>> also added to
>> > the Undo stack so you can roll it back using Ctrl-Z. This
>> is standard
>> > behavior, this is how many other programs work.
>> >
>> >
>> > The alternative is to switch to the modal dialog for the
>> editor, but
>> > that seems very intrusive and requires lot more clicks to edit
>> > something. If it is modal, it won't let you do anything
>> else until you
>> > finish your changes and hit Cancel or Apply. I do not like
>> this idea,
>> > but I like the first idea much better (when changes are applied
>> > immediately when you hit Enter or switch focus).
>> >
>> >
>> > What do you think ?
>> >
>>
>> I like the first idea as well.
>>
>> >
>> > --vk
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal
>> Reports 2008 30-Day
>> > trial. Simplify your report design, integration and
>> deployment - and focus on
>> > what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's
>> new with
>> > Crystal Reports now. http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july
>> > _______________________________________________
>> Fwbuilder-discussion mailing list
>> Fwbuilder-discussion@...

>> <mailto:Fwbuilder-discussion@...>

>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fwbuilder-discussion
>> --
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------
>> Frank Tanner III (pctech@...

>> <mailto:pctech@...>)
>>
>> ICQ: 1730844
>> AIM: KalokSundancer
>> MSN: pctech@... <mailto:pctech@...>

>> YIM: fbtanner
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal
>> Reports 2008 30-Day
>> trial. Simplify your report design, integration and
>> deployment - and focus on
>> what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's
>> new with
>> Crystal Reports now. http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july
>> _______________________________________________
>> Fwbuilder-discussion mailing list
>> Fwbuilder-discussion@...

>> <mailto:Fwbuilder-discussion@...>

>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fwbuilder-discussion
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports
>> 2008 30-Day
>> trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment -
>> and focus on
>> what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with
>> Crystal Reports now. http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july
>> _______________________________________________
>> Fwbuilder-discussion mailing list
>> Fwbuilder-discussion@...

>> <mailto:Fwbuilder-discussion@...>

>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fwbuilder-discussion
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008
>> 30-Day
>> trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and
>> focus on
>> what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with
>> Crystal Reports now. http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july
>> _______________________________________________
>> Fwbuilder-discussion mailing list
>> Fwbuilder-discussion@...

>> <mailto:Fwbuilder-discussion@...>

>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fwbuilder-discussion
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day
> trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus on
> what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with
> Crystal Reports now. http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Fwbuilder-discussion mailing list
> Fwbuilder-discussion@...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fwbuilder-discussion
>

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day
trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus on
what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with
Crystal Reports now. http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july
_______________________________________________
Fwbuilder-discussion mailing list
Fwbuilder-discussion@...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fwbuilder-discussion

Default action on rule creation.

2009-11-16T07:17:06Z

Hello everybody:

¿Is it possible to change the default action (DROP) on rule creation?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day
trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus on
what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with
Crystal Reports now. http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july
_______________________________________________
Fwbuilder-discussion mailing list
Fwbuilder-discussion@...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fwbuilder-discussion

Re: Opinion poll

2009-11-16T05:43:15Z

>> The alternative is to switch to the modal dialog for the editor, but
>> that seems very intrusive and requires lot more clicks to edit
>> something. If it is modal, it won't let you do anything else until you
>> finish your changes and hit Cancel or Apply. I do not like this idea,
>> but I like the first idea much better (when changes are applied
>> immediately when you hit Enter or switch focus).
>> What do you think ?
>
> -1
>
> Modal, bad.

I typically dislike modal dialogs for similar reasons. They are very
intrusive and usually interfere with the smooth operation of the software.
For a great example look at Windows Vista's much dislikes UAC "You have
moved your mouse, Allow or Deny?" prompts...

--
"The box said requires Windows 95 or better... So I installed Linux"

Chris Hendrickson
GOES Program
NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center
Office: (301) 286-0619
Cell: (301) 832-4450
Christopher.E.Hendrickson@...
Chris.Hendrickson@...

GOES/GRODAS East System Administrator
GSFC Code 415/417/480 ACSO

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day
trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus on
what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with
Crystal Reports now. http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july
_______________________________________________
Fwbuilder-discussion mailing list
Fwbuilder-discussion@...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fwbuilder-discussion

Re: Please, Remove my email from your list.( amrsun@gmail.com )

2009-11-16T05:22:55Z

Re: [Fwbuilder-discussion] Please, Remove my email from your list.( <a href="http://old.nabble.com/user/SendEmail.jtp?type=post&post=26371824&i=0" target="_top" rel="nofollow">amrsun@...</a> ) Please note the text attached to the bottom of every message, which includes a link where you can manage your subscription...

_______________________________________________
Fwbuilder-discussion mailing list
Fwbuilder-discussion@...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fwbuilder-discussion

--
"The box said requires Windows 95 or better... So I installed Linux"

Chris Hendrickson
GOES Program
NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center
Office: (301) 286-0619
Cell: (301) 832-4450
Christopher.E.Hendrickson@...
Chris.Hendrickson@...

GOES/GRODAS East System Administrator
GSFC Code 415/417/480 ACSO

From: A M <amrsun@...>
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 06:45:12 -0500
To: <Fwbuilder-discussion@...>
Subject: [Fwbuilder-discussion] Please, Remove my email from your list.( amrsun@... )

Please, Remove my email from your list.( amrsun@gmail.com )

2009-11-16T03:45:12Z

Re: Opinion poll

2009-11-16T03:30:43Z

On Sun, 2009-11-15 at 09:29 -0800, Vadim Kurland wrote:
> Hi all,
>
>
> We are actively working on Undo for the Firewall Builder v4.0 GUI and
> we think of changing the way object editor operates to make it more
> logical and easier integrated with Undo facility. The idea is to make
> the editor apply changes to the object's attribute immediately when
> user types something in the entry field and hits Enter or switches
> focus to another entry field

+1

Nothing is 'committed' until the user Saves anyway.

> The alternative is to switch to the modal dialog for the editor, but
> that seems very intrusive and requires lot more clicks to edit
> something. If it is modal, it won't let you do anything else until you
> finish your changes and hit Cancel or Apply. I do not like this idea,
> but I like the first idea much better (when changes are applied
> immediately when you hit Enter or switch focus).
> What do you think ?

-1

Modal, bad.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day
trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus on
what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with
Crystal Reports now. http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july
_______________________________________________
Fwbuilder-discussion mailing list
Fwbuilder-discussion@...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fwbuilder-discussion

Re: Opinion poll

2009-11-16T03:07:14Z

Me too would favor the auto-apply option. Still I do share the concerns of
unwanted changes.
How about this one: before saving a ruleset you get a list of all
changes applied (the content of the
undo list) which can then be confirmed or rejected.

alex

Chris E. Hendrickson schrieb:

> I will toss in a vote for the immediate apply and undo (and redo?) as
> well. Maybe a good compromise for the anti-auto-apply people might be
> a setting to switch between the two behaviors.
>
> On Nov 15, 2009, at 5:55 PM, "Vadim Kurland" <vadim@...
> <mailto:vadim@...>> wrote:
>
>>
>> Chris, I see your point.
>>
>>
>> So far I have 4 "for" immediate saving of the changes and 1 "against" it.
>>
>> I need more votes to make the decision. We are trying to design the
>> Undo function in a such way that it would work regardless of the
>> editor design. So this opinion poll is not about how Undo should
>> work, it is about how the editor should work.
>>
>> To reiterate, there are two major ways to implement object editor:
>>
>> 1) You type in the input field in the editor, hit Enter or click on
>> another input field, and the change immediately saved into the object
>> and added to the Undo stack. You can roll changes back one by one.
>>
>> 2) the GUI offers small panel that shows object properties and has
>> button "Edit". Clicking on this button opens object editor in a modal
>> dialog, you can't do anything else until you click Cancel or OK in it.
>>
>> As I said, Undo will work either way. In the case (1) it will roll
>> back change done to one attribute of the object, while in case (2) it
>> will roll back all changes done in the editor while it was opened.
>>
>> Note that even in the case (1) changes made in the "advanced
>> settings" dialogs will be rolled back as a batch because these
>> dialogs are already modal.
>>
>> I am going to make final decision by the end of the day Tuesday (my
>> time, Pacific Time Zone) by counting votes cast for (1) or (2). The
>> 5 votes I have so far count, unless you guys want to change your mind.
>>
>> --vk
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 1:57 PM, Chris Martin <chris@...
>> <mailto:chris@...>> wrote:
>>
>> Personally, I prefer the Modal Dialog Box
>>
>> (1) It prevents accidental modification of the object
>> (2) It encourages you to "review" you setting before you select
>> "apply"
>>
>> I find that I don't modify objects very often. Its the rule-set
>> that I am always changing, so an extra click or two in the object
>> editor is OK..
>>
>> I find in X that there are many applications that could benefit
>> from Modal Dialog Boxes for editing
>>
>> In my view, its best to display the object in a summary window,
>> with an edit button. The edit window should be modal. This way
>> no one forgets to apply changes. The display window takes less
>> screen space (good for use with net-books). The edit window
>> overlays the application, focusing attention of the object, and
>> forcing a commit.
>>
>> My 2c worth
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>> Chris Martin
>> m: 0419812371
>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 8:17 AM, Frank Tanner
>> <pctech@... <mailto:pctech@...>> wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 2009-11-15 at 09:29 -0800, Vadim Kurland wrote:
>> > Hi all,
>> >
>> >
>> > We are actively working on Undo for the Firewall Builder
>> v4.0 GUI and
>> > we think of changing the way object editor operates to make
>> it more
>> > logical and easier integrated with Undo facility. The idea
>> is to make
>> > the editor apply changes to the object's attribute
>> immediately when
>> > user types something in the entry field and hits Enter or
>> switches
>> > focus to another entry field. The "Apply" button will be
>> removed if
>> > this is done. You just edit a name or comment or port
>> number etc and
>> > hit Enter and it is saved right away into the object and
>> also added to
>> > the Undo stack so you can roll it back using Ctrl-Z. This
>> is standard
>> > behavior, this is how many other programs work.
>> >
>> >
>> > The alternative is to switch to the modal dialog for the
>> editor, but
>> > that seems very intrusive and requires lot more clicks to edit
>> > something. If it is modal, it won't let you do anything
>> else until you
>> > finish your changes and hit Cancel or Apply. I do not like
>> this idea,
>> > but I like the first idea much better (when changes are applied
>> > immediately when you hit Enter or switch focus).
>> >
>> >
>> > What do you think ?
>> >
>>
>> I like the first idea as well.
>>
>> >
>> > --vk
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal
>> Reports 2008 30-Day
>> > trial. Simplify your report design, integration and
>> deployment - and focus on
>> > what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's
>> new with
>> > Crystal Reports now. http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july
>> > _______________________________________________
>> Fwbuilder-discussion mailing list
>> Fwbuilder-discussion@...
>> <mailto:Fwbuilder-discussion@...>
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fwbuilder-discussion
>> --
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------
>> Frank Tanner III (pctech@...
>> <mailto:pctech@...>)
>>
>> ICQ: 1730844
>> AIM: KalokSundancer
>> MSN: pctech@... <mailto:pctech@...>
>> YIM: fbtanner
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal
>> Reports 2008 30-Day
>> trial. Simplify your report design, integration and
>> deployment - and focus on
>> what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's
>> new with
>> Crystal Reports now. http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july
>> _______________________________________________
>> Fwbuilder-discussion mailing list
>> Fwbuilder-discussion@...
>> <mailto:Fwbuilder-discussion@...>
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fwbuilder-discussion
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports
>> 2008 30-Day
>> trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment -
>> and focus on
>> what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with
>> Crystal Reports now. http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july
>> _______________________________________________
>> Fwbuilder-discussion mailing list
>> Fwbuilder-discussion@...
>> <mailto:Fwbuilder-discussion@...>
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fwbuilder-discussion
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008
>> 30-Day
>> trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and
>> focus on
>> what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with
>> Crystal Reports now. http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july
>> _______________________________________________
>> Fwbuilder-discussion mailing list
>> Fwbuilder-discussion@...
>> <mailto:Fwbuilder-discussion@...>
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fwbuilder-discussion
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day
> trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus on
> what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with
> Crystal Reports now. http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Fwbuilder-discussion mailing list
> Fwbuilder-discussion@...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fwbuilder-discussion
>

Re: Opinion poll

2009-11-15T16:19:18Z

I will toss in a vote for the immediate apply and undo (and redo?) as well. Maybe a good compromise for the anti-auto-apply people might be a setting to switch between the two behaviors.

On Nov 15, 2009, at 5:55 PM, "Vadim Kurland" <vadim@...> wrote:

Chris, I see your point.

So far I have 4 "for" immediate saving of the changes and 1 "against" it.

I need more votes to make the decision. We are trying to design the Undo function in a such way that it would work regardless of the editor design. So this opinion poll is not about how Undo should work, it is about how the editor should work.

To reiterate, there are two major ways to implement object editor:

1) You type in the input field in the editor, hit Enter or click on another input field, and the change immediately saved into the object and added to the Undo stack. You can roll changes back one by one.

2) the GUI offers small panel that shows object properties and has button "Edit". Clicking on this button opens object editor in a modal dialog, you can't do anything else until you click Cancel or OK in it.

As I said, Undo will work either way. In the case (1) it will roll back change done to one attribute of the object, while in case (2) it will roll back all changes done in the editor while it was opened.

Note that even in the case (1) changes made in the "advanced settings" dialogs will be rolled back as a batch because these dialogs are already modal.

I am going to make final decision by the end of the day Tuesday (my time, Pacific Time Zone) by counting votes cast for (1) or (2). The 5 votes I have so far count, unless you guys want to change your mind.

--vk

On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 1:57 PM, Chris Martin <chris@...> wrote:
Personally, I prefer the Modal Dialog Box

(1) It prevents accidental modification of the object
(2) It encourages you to "review" you setting before you select "apply"

I find that I don't modify objects very often. Its the rule-set that I am always changing, so an extra click or two in the object editor is OK..

I find in X that there are many applications that could benefit from Modal Dialog Boxes for editing

In my view, its best to display the object in a summary window, with an edit button. The edit window should be modal. This way no one forgets to apply changes. The display window takes less screen space (good for use with net-books). The edit window overlays the application, focusing attention of the object, and forcing a commit.

My 2c worth

----------------------------------------------------------
Chris Martin
m: 0419812371
----------------------------------------------------------

On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 8:17 AM, Frank Tanner <pctech@...> wrote:

On Sun, 2009-11-15 at 09:29 -0800, Vadim Kurland wrote:
> Hi all,
>
>
> We are actively working on Undo for the Firewall Builder v4.0 GUI and
> we think of changing the way object editor operates to make it more
> logical and easier integrated with Undo facility. The idea is to make
> the editor apply changes to the object's attribute immediately when
> user types something in the entry field and hits Enter or switches
> focus to another entry field. The "Apply" button will be removed if
> this is done. You just edit a name or comment or port number etc and
> hit Enter and it is saved right away into the object and also added to
> the Undo stack so you can roll it back using Ctrl-Z. This is standard
> behavior, this is how many other programs work.
>
>
> The alternative is to switch to the modal dialog for the editor, but
> that seems very intrusive and requires lot more clicks to edit
> something. If it is modal, it won't let you do anything else until you
> finish your changes and hit Cancel or Apply. I do not like this idea,
> but I like the first idea much better (when changes are applied
> immediately when you hit Enter or switch focus).
>
>
> What do you think ?
>

I like the first idea as well.

>
> --vk

>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day
> trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus on
> what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with
> Crystal Reports now. http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july
> _______________________________________________ Fwbuilder-discussion mailing list Fwbuilder-discussion@... https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fwbuilder-discussion

--

---------------------------------------------------
Frank Tanner III (pctech@...)

ICQ: 1730844
AIM: KalokSundancer
MSN: pctech@...
YIM: fbtanner

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day
trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus on
what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with
Crystal Reports now. http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july
_______________________________________________
Fwbuilder-discussion mailing list
Fwbuilder-discussion@...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fwbuilder-discussion

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day
trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus on
what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with
Crystal Reports now. http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july
_______________________________________________
Fwbuilder-discussion mailing list
Fwbuilder-discussion@...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fwbuilder-discussion

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day
trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus on
what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with
Crystal Reports now. http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july

_______________________________________________
Fwbuilder-discussion mailing list
Fwbuilder-discussion@...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fwbuilder-discussion

Re: Opinion poll

2009-11-15T15:51:02Z

On Sun, 2009-11-15 at 18:19 -0500, Robert William Fuller wrote:

> I would like to make a suggestion. I have a similar objection to Chris.
> I don't like to accidentally change things and not realize it. On the
> other hand, I think an undo feature would be very nice.
>
> I see a middle way. An undo feature would be nice if you can review the
> changes you've made. I would like a window that I could open where I
> could see all the changes I've made. Here I could review what I've done.
>
> This approach would let me have an undo feature, as well as a feature to
> review my changes. As long as I review my changes before I save or
> install my policy, then I do not have to worry about accidentally
> changing something. At the same time, this avoids having the modal dialogs.
>

The thing that the "against" people aren't getting is that even though
the changes are immediate to the objects themselves, they don't
immediately get applied to the firewall. You still have to go through
the process of compiling and uploading the policy to the firewall. So,
it's not like the changes are going to immediately get applied to the
running firewall, like what happens when you make a rule change to a PIX
or ASA firewall from the command line. You still have the option of
reverting back or changing the object before it ever gets to the
firewall.

> Vadim Kurland wrote:
> > Chris, I see your point.
> >
> >
> > So far I have 4 "for" immediate saving of the changes and 1 "against" it.
> >
> > I need more votes to make the decision. We are trying to design the Undo
> > function in a such way that it would work regardless of the editor design.
> > So this opinion poll is not about how Undo should work, it is about how the
> > editor should work.
> >
> > To reiterate, there are two major ways to implement object editor:
> >
> > 1) You type in the input field in the editor, hit Enter or click on another
> > input field, and the change immediately saved into the object and added to
> > the Undo stack. You can roll changes back one by one.
> >
> > 2) the GUI offers small panel that shows object properties and has button
> > "Edit". Clicking on this button opens object editor in a modal dialog, you
> > can't do anything else until you click Cancel or OK in it.
> >
> > As I said, Undo will work either way. In the case (1) it will roll back
> > change done to one attribute of the object, while in case (2) it will roll
> > back all changes done in the editor while it was opened.
> >
> > Note that even in the case (1) changes made in the "advanced settings"
> > dialogs will be rolled back as a batch because these dialogs are already
> > modal.
> >
> > I am going to make final decision by the end of the day Tuesday (my time,
> > Pacific Time Zone) by counting votes cast for (1) or (2). The 5 votes I
> > have so far count, unless you guys want to change your mind.
> >
> > --vk
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 1:57 PM, Chris Martin <chris@...> wrote:
> >
> >> Personally, I prefer the Modal Dialog Box
> >>
> >> (1) It prevents accidental modification of the object
> >> (2) It encourages you to "review" you setting before you select "apply"
> >>
> >> I find that I don't modify objects very often. Its the rule-set that I am
> >> always changing, so an extra click or two in the object editor is OK..
> >>
> >> I find in X that there are many applications that could benefit from Modal
> >> Dialog Boxes for editing
> >>
> >> In my view, its best to display the object in a summary window, with an
> >> edit button. The edit window should be modal. This way no one forgets to
> >> apply changes. The display window takes less screen space (good for use
> >> with net-books). The edit window overlays the application, focusing
> >> attention of the object, and forcing a commit.
> >>
> >> My 2c worth
> >>
> >> ----------------------------------------------------------
> >> Chris Martin
> >> m: 0419812371
> >> ----------------------------------------------------------
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 8:17 AM, Frank Tanner <pctech@...>wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Sun, 2009-11-15 at 09:29 -0800, Vadim Kurland wrote:
> >>>> Hi all,
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> We are actively working on Undo for the Firewall Builder v4.0 GUI and
> >>>> we think of changing the way object editor operates to make it more
> >>>> logical and easier integrated with Undo facility. The idea is to make
> >>>> the editor apply changes to the object's attribute immediately when
> >>>> user types something in the entry field and hits Enter or switches
> >>>> focus to another entry field. The "Apply" button will be removed if
> >>>> this is done. You just edit a name or comment or port number etc and
> >>>> hit Enter and it is saved right away into the object and also added to
> >>>> the Undo stack so you can roll it back using Ctrl-Z. This is standard
> >>>> behavior, this is how many other programs work.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> The alternative is to switch to the modal dialog for the editor, but
> >>>> that seems very intrusive and requires lot more clicks to edit
> >>>> something. If it is modal, it won't let you do anything else until you
> >>>> finish your changes and hit Cancel or Apply. I do not like this idea,
> >>>> but I like the first idea much better (when changes are applied
> >>>> immediately when you hit Enter or switch focus).
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> What do you think ?
> >>>>
> >>> I like the first idea as well.
> >>>
> >>>> --vk
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>> Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008
> >>> 30-Day
> >>>> trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and
> >>> focus on
> >>>> what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with
> >>>> Crystal Reports now. http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july
> >>>> _______________________________________________ Fwbuilder-discussion
> >>> mailing list Fwbuilder-discussion@...
> >>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fwbuilder-discussion
> >>> --
> >>>
> >>> ---------------------------------------------------
> >>> Frank Tanner III (pctech@...)
> >>>
> >>> ICQ: 1730844
> >>> AIM: KalokSundancer
> >>> MSN: pctech@...
> >>> YIM: fbtanner
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008
> >>> 30-Day
> >>> trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus
> >>> on
> >>> what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with
> >>> Crystal Reports now. http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Fwbuilder-discussion mailing list
> >>> Fwbuilder-discussion@...
> >>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fwbuilder-discussion
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day
> >> trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus
> >> on
> >> what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with
> >> Crystal Reports now. http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Fwbuilder-discussion mailing list
> >> Fwbuilder-discussion@...
> >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fwbuilder-discussion
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day
> > trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus on
> > what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with
> > Crystal Reports now. http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Fwbuilder-discussion mailing list
> > Fwbuilder-discussion@...
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fwbuilder-discussion
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day
> trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus on
> what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with
> Crystal Reports now. http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july
> _______________________________________________
> Fwbuilder-discussion mailing list
> Fwbuilder-discussion@...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fwbuilder-discussion

--

---------------------------------------------------
Frank Tanner III (pctech@...)

ICQ: 1730844
AIM: KalokSundancer
MSN: pctech@...
YIM: fbtanner

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day
trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus on
what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with
Crystal Reports now. http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july
_______________________________________________
Fwbuilder-discussion mailing list
Fwbuilder-discussion@...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fwbuilder-discussion

Re: Opinion poll

2009-11-15T15:25:54Z

We use fwbuilder with RCS and always have it configured to save
automatically. I think the undo concept you describe with immediate
effect is the way to go.

-price

Quoting Vadim Kurland <vadim@...>:

> Hi all,
>
> We are actively working on Undo for the Firewall Builder v4.0 GUI and we
> think of changing the way object editor operates to make it more logical and
> easier integrated with Undo facility. The idea is to make the editor apply
> changes to the object's attribute immediately when user types something in
> the entry field and hits Enter or switches focus to another entry field. The
> "Apply" button will be removed if this is done. You just edit a name or
> comment or port number etc and hit Enter and it is saved right away into the
> object and also added to the Undo stack so you can roll it back using
> Ctrl-Z. This is standard behavior, this is how many other programs work.
>
> The alternative is to switch to the modal dialog for the editor, but that
> seems very intrusive and requires lot more clicks to edit something. If it
> is modal, it won't let you do anything else until you finish your changes
> and hit Cancel or Apply. I do not like this idea, but I like the first idea
> much better (when changes are applied immediately when you hit Enter or
> switch focus).
>
> What do you think ?
>
> --vk
>

Re: Opinion poll

2009-11-15T15:19:19Z

I would like to make a suggestion. I have a similar objection to Chris.
I don't like to accidentally change things and not realize it. On the
other hand, I think an undo feature would be very nice.

I see a middle way. An undo feature would be nice if you can review the
changes you've made. I would like a window that I could open where I
could see all the changes I've made. Here I could review what I've done.

This approach would let me have an undo feature, as well as a feature to
review my changes. As long as I review my changes before I save or
install my policy, then I do not have to worry about accidentally
changing something. At the same time, this avoids having the modal dialogs.

Vadim Kurland wrote:

> Chris, I see your point.
>
>
> So far I have 4 "for" immediate saving of the changes and 1 "against" it.
>
> I need more votes to make the decision. We are trying to design the Undo
> function in a such way that it would work regardless of the editor design.
> So this opinion poll is not about how Undo should work, it is about how the
> editor should work.
>
> To reiterate, there are two major ways to implement object editor:
>
> 1) You type in the input field in the editor, hit Enter or click on another
> input field, and the change immediately saved into the object and added to
> the Undo stack. You can roll changes back one by one.
>
> 2) the GUI offers small panel that shows object properties and has button
> "Edit". Clicking on this button opens object editor in a modal dialog, you
> can't do anything else until you click Cancel or OK in it.
>
> As I said, Undo will work either way. In the case (1) it will roll back
> change done to one attribute of the object, while in case (2) it will roll
> back all changes done in the editor while it was opened.
>
> Note that even in the case (1) changes made in the "advanced settings"
> dialogs will be rolled back as a batch because these dialogs are already
> modal.
>
> I am going to make final decision by the end of the day Tuesday (my time,
> Pacific Time Zone) by counting votes cast for (1) or (2). The 5 votes I
> have so far count, unless you guys want to change your mind.
>
> --vk
>
>
>
> On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 1:57 PM, Chris Martin <chris@...> wrote:
>
>> Personally, I prefer the Modal Dialog Box
>>
>> (1) It prevents accidental modification of the object
>> (2) It encourages you to "review" you setting before you select "apply"
>>
>> I find that I don't modify objects very often. Its the rule-set that I am
>> always changing, so an extra click or two in the object editor is OK..
>>
>> I find in X that there are many applications that could benefit from Modal
>> Dialog Boxes for editing
>>
>> In my view, its best to display the object in a summary window, with an
>> edit button. The edit window should be modal. This way no one forgets to
>> apply changes. The display window takes less screen space (good for use
>> with net-books). The edit window overlays the application, focusing
>> attention of the object, and forcing a commit.
>>
>> My 2c worth
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>> Chris Martin
>> m: 0419812371
>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 8:17 AM, Frank Tanner <pctech@...>wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 2009-11-15 at 09:29 -0800, Vadim Kurland wrote:
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> We are actively working on Undo for the Firewall Builder v4.0 GUI and
>>>> we think of changing the way object editor operates to make it more
>>>> logical and easier integrated with Undo facility. The idea is to make
>>>> the editor apply changes to the object's attribute immediately when
>>>> user types something in the entry field and hits Enter or switches
>>>> focus to another entry field. The "Apply" button will be removed if
>>>> this is done. You just edit a name or comment or port number etc and
>>>> hit Enter and it is saved right away into the object and also added to
>>>> the Undo stack so you can roll it back using Ctrl-Z. This is standard
>>>> behavior, this is how many other programs work.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The alternative is to switch to the modal dialog for the editor, but
>>>> that seems very intrusive and requires lot more clicks to edit
>>>> something. If it is modal, it won't let you do anything else until you
>>>> finish your changes and hit Cancel or Apply. I do not like this idea,
>>>> but I like the first idea much better (when changes are applied
>>>> immediately when you hit Enter or switch focus).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What do you think ?
>>>>
>>> I like the first idea as well.
>>>
>>>> --vk
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008
>>> 30-Day
>>>> trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and
>>> focus on
>>>> what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with
>>>> Crystal Reports now. http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july
>>>> _______________________________________________ Fwbuilder-discussion
>>> mailing list Fwbuilder-discussion@...
>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fwbuilder-discussion
>>> --
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------
>>> Frank Tanner III (pctech@...)
>>>
>>> ICQ: 1730844
>>> AIM: KalokSundancer
>>> MSN: pctech@...
>>> YIM: fbtanner
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008
>>> 30-Day
>>> trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus
>>> on
>>> what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with
>>> Crystal Reports now. http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Fwbuilder-discussion mailing list
>>> Fwbuilder-discussion@...
>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fwbuilder-discussion
>>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day
>> trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus
>> on
>> what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with
>> Crystal Reports now. http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july
>> _______________________________________________
>> Fwbuilder-discussion mailing list
>> Fwbuilder-discussion@...
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fwbuilder-discussion
>>
>>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day
> trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus on
> what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with
> Crystal Reports now. http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Fwbuilder-discussion mailing list
> Fwbuilder-discussion@...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fwbuilder-discussion

Re: Opinion poll

2009-11-15T15:08:46Z

On Sun, 2009-11-15 at 14:26 -0800, Vadim Kurland wrote:
> So far I have 4 "for" immediate saving of the changes and 1 "against"
> it.

I'm for the current system (sorry) :-)

If it has to change, then immediate save would be my preference.

Regards, K.

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Karl Auer (kauer@...) +61-2-64957160 (h)
http://www.biplane.com.au/~kauer/ +61-428-957160 (mob)

GPG fingerprint: 07F3 1DF9 9D45 8BCD 7DD5 00CE 4A44 6A03 F43A 7DEF

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day
trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus on
what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with
Crystal Reports now. http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july
_______________________________________________
Fwbuilder-discussion mailing list
Fwbuilder-discussion@...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fwbuilder-discussion

signature.asc (204 bytes) Download Attachment

Re: Opinion poll

2009-11-15T14:26:12Z

Chris, I see your point.

So far I have 4 "for" immediate saving of the changes and 1 "against" it.

I need more votes to make the decision. We are trying to design the Undo function in a such way that it would work regardless of the editor design. So this opinion poll is not about how Undo should work, it is about how the editor should work.

To reiterate, there are two major ways to implement object editor:

1) You type in the input field in the editor, hit Enter or click on another input field, and the change immediately saved into the object and added to the Undo stack. You can roll changes back one by one.

2) the GUI offers small panel that shows object properties and has button "Edit". Clicking on this button opens object editor in a modal dialog, you can't do anything else until you click Cancel or OK in it.

As I said, Undo will work either way. In the case (1) it will roll back change done to one attribute of the object, while in case (2) it will roll back all changes done in the editor while it was opened.

Note that even in the case (1) changes made in the "advanced settings" dialogs will be rolled back as a batch because these dialogs are already modal.

I am going to make final decision by the end of the day Tuesday (my time, Pacific Time Zone) by counting votes cast for (1) or (2). The 5 votes I have so far count, unless you guys want to change your mind.

--vk

On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 1:57 PM, Chris Martin <chris@...> wrote:

Personally, I prefer the Modal Dialog Box

(1) It prevents accidental modification of the object
(2) It encourages you to "review" you setting before you select "apply"

I find that I don't modify objects very often. Its the rule-set that I am always changing, so an extra click or two in the object editor is OK..

I find in X that there are many applications that could benefit from Modal Dialog Boxes for editing

In my view, its best to display the object in a summary window, with an edit button. The edit window should be modal. This way no one forgets to apply changes. The display window takes less screen space (good for use with net-books). The edit window overlays the application, focusing attention of the object, and forcing a commit.

My 2c worth

----------------------------------------------------------
Chris Martin
m: 0419812371
----------------------------------------------------------

On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 8:17 AM, Frank Tanner <pctech@...> wrote:

On Sun, 2009-11-15 at 09:29 -0800, Vadim Kurland wrote:
> Hi all,
>
>
> We are actively working on Undo for the Firewall Builder v4.0 GUI and
> we think of changing the way object editor operates to make it more
> logical and easier integrated with Undo facility. The idea is to make
> the editor apply changes to the object's attribute immediately when
> user types something in the entry field and hits Enter or switches
> focus to another entry field. The "Apply" button will be removed if
> this is done. You just edit a name or comment or port number etc and
> hit Enter and it is saved right away into the object and also added to
> the Undo stack so you can roll it back using Ctrl-Z. This is standard
> behavior, this is how many other programs work.
>
>
> The alternative is to switch to the modal dialog for the editor, but
> that seems very intrusive and requires lot more clicks to edit
> something. If it is modal, it won't let you do anything else until you
> finish your changes and hit Cancel or Apply. I do not like this idea,
> but I like the first idea much better (when changes are applied
> immediately when you hit Enter or switch focus).
>
>
> What do you think ?
>

I like the first idea as well.

>
> --vk

>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day
> trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus on
> what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with
> Crystal Reports now. http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july
> _______________________________________________ Fwbuilder-discussion mailing list Fwbuilder-discussion@... https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fwbuilder-discussion

--

---------------------------------------------------
Frank Tanner III (pctech@...)

ICQ: 1730844
AIM: KalokSundancer
MSN: pctech@...
YIM: fbtanner

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day
trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus on
what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with
Crystal Reports now. http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july
_______________________________________________
Fwbuilder-discussion mailing list
Fwbuilder-discussion@...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fwbuilder-discussion

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day
trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus on
what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with
Crystal Reports now. http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july
_______________________________________________
Fwbuilder-discussion mailing list
Fwbuilder-discussion@...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fwbuilder-discussion

Re: Opinion poll

2009-11-15T13:57:07Z

Personally, I prefer the Modal Dialog Box

(1) It prevents accidental modification of the object
(2) It encourages you to "review" you setting before you select "apply"

I find that I don't modify objects very often. Its the rule-set that I am always changing, so an extra click or two in the object editor is OK..

I find in X that there are many applications that could benefit from Modal Dialog Boxes for editing

In my view, its best to display the object in a summary window, with an edit button. The edit window should be modal. This way no one forgets to apply changes. The display window takes less screen space (good for use with net-books). The edit window overlays the application, focusing attention of the object, and forcing a commit.

My 2c worth

----------------------------------------------------------
Chris Martin
m: 0419812371
----------------------------------------------------------

On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 8:17 AM, Frank Tanner <pctech@...> wrote:

On Sun, 2009-11-15 at 09:29 -0800, Vadim Kurland wrote:
> Hi all,
>
>
> We are actively working on Undo for the Firewall Builder v4.0 GUI and
> we think of changing the way object editor operates to make it more
> logical and easier integrated with Undo facility. The idea is to make
> the editor apply changes to the object's attribute immediately when
> user types something in the entry field and hits Enter or switches
> focus to another entry field. The "Apply" button will be removed if
> this is done. You just edit a name or comment or port number etc and
> hit Enter and it is saved right away into the object and also added to
> the Undo stack so you can roll it back using Ctrl-Z. This is standard
> behavior, this is how many other programs work.
>
>
> The alternative is to switch to the modal dialog for the editor, but
> that seems very intrusive and requires lot more clicks to edit
> something. If it is modal, it won't let you do anything else until you
> finish your changes and hit Cancel or Apply. I do not like this idea,
> but I like the first idea much better (when changes are applied
> immediately when you hit Enter or switch focus).
>
>
> What do you think ?
>

I like the first idea as well.

>
> --vk

>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day
> trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus on
> what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with
> Crystal Reports now. http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july
> _______________________________________________ Fwbuilder-discussion mailing list Fwbuilder-discussion@... https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fwbuilder-discussion

--

---------------------------------------------------
Frank Tanner III (pctech@...)

ICQ: 1730844
AIM: KalokSundancer
MSN: pctech@...
YIM: fbtanner

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day
trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus on
what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with
Crystal Reports now. http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july
_______________________________________________
Fwbuilder-discussion mailing list
Fwbuilder-discussion@...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fwbuilder-discussion

Re: Opinion poll

2009-11-15T13:17:51Z

On Sun, 2009-11-15 at 09:29 -0800, Vadim Kurland wrote:

> Hi all,
>
>
> We are actively working on Undo for the Firewall Builder v4.0 GUI and
> we think of changing the way object editor operates to make it more
> logical and easier integrated with Undo facility. The idea is to make
> the editor apply changes to the object's attribute immediately when
> user types something in the entry field and hits Enter or switches
> focus to another entry field. The "Apply" button will be removed if
> this is done. You just edit a name or comment or port number etc and
> hit Enter and it is saved right away into the object and also added to
> the Undo stack so you can roll it back using Ctrl-Z. This is standard
> behavior, this is how many other programs work.
>
>
> The alternative is to switch to the modal dialog for the editor, but
> that seems very intrusive and requires lot more clicks to edit
> something. If it is modal, it won't let you do anything else until you
> finish your changes and hit Cancel or Apply. I do not like this idea,
> but I like the first idea much better (when changes are applied
> immediately when you hit Enter or switch focus).
>
>
> What do you think ?
>

I like the first idea as well.

>
> --vk
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day
> trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus on
> what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with
> Crystal Reports now. http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july
> _______________________________________________ Fwbuilder-discussion mailing list Fwbuilder-discussion@... https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fwbuilder-discussion

Re: Opinion poll

2009-11-15T09:53:34Z

Am Sonntag, 15. November 2009 18:29:20 schrieb Vadim Kurland:

> Hi all,
>
> We are actively working on Undo for the Firewall Builder v4.0 GUI and we
> think of changing the way object editor operates to make it more logical
> and easier integrated with Undo facility. The idea is to make the editor
> apply changes to the object's attribute immediately when user types
> something in the entry field and hits Enter or switches focus to another
> entry field. The "Apply" button will be removed if this is done. You just
> edit a name or comment or port number etc and hit Enter and it is saved
> right away into the object and also added to the Undo stack so you can roll
> it back using Ctrl-Z. This is standard behavior, this is how many other
> programs work.

Good idea!

I really like the idea to make changes instantanously because I often forget
the "Apply" button. I would only add an "undo" button below because a lot of
people don't know about the magic of CTRL-Z.

Greetings,

Michael.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day
trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus on
what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with
Crystal Reports now. http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july
_______________________________________________
Fwbuilder-discussion mailing list
Fwbuilder-discussion@...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fwbuilder-discussion

Opinion poll

2009-11-15T09:29:20Z

Hi all,

We are actively working on Undo for the Firewall Builder v4.0 GUI and we think of changing the way object editor operates to make it more logical and easier integrated with Undo facility. The idea is to make the editor apply changes to the object's attribute immediately when user types something in the entry field and hits Enter or switches focus to another entry field. The "Apply" button will be removed if this is done. You just edit a name or comment or port number etc and hit Enter and it is saved right away into the object and also added to the Undo stack so you can roll it back using Ctrl-Z. This is standard behavior, this is how many other programs work.

The alternative is to switch to the modal dialog for the editor, but that seems very intrusive and requires lot more clicks to edit something. If it is modal, it won't let you do anything else until you finish your changes and hit Cancel or Apply. I do not like this idea, but I like the first idea much better (when changes are applied immediately when you hit Enter or switch focus).

What do you think ?

--vk

Re: Simple IPTABLES to fwbuilder question

2009-11-13T07:29:20Z

On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 4:41 AM, Sven Anders <sven@...> wrote:

Hi,
how do I migrate a IPTABLES Rule like this:

$IPTABLES -A FORWARD -i eth0 -s 192.168.3.7 -o eth2 \
-d 172.16.42.42 -m state --state NEW -p tcp -m tcp \
--dport 80 -j ACCEPT

to fw-builder?

===I have tryed this: ===

* Set up a extra Polcy called eth1_out and insert in Policy

===Policy: ==

From: src_host
To: to_host
Service: http
Interface: eth0
Direction: IN
Action: Chain eth1_out

=== eth1_out ===

From: (empty)
To: (empty)
Service (empty)
Direction: OUT
Interface: eth1
Action: ACCEPT

From: (empty)
To: (empty)
Service (empty)
Direction: (empty)
Interface: (empty)
Action: DENY

but perhabs there is a nice way to do it?

no, this is the only way to do it.

--vk

Simple IPTABLES to fwbuilder question

2009-11-13T04:41:20Z

Hi,
how do I migrate a IPTABLES Rule like this:

$IPTABLES -A FORWARD -i eth0 -s 192.168.3.7 -o eth2 \
-d 172.16.42.42 -m state --state NEW -p tcp -m tcp \
--dport 80 -j ACCEPT

to fw-builder?

===I have tryed this: ===

* Set up a extra Polcy called eth1_out and insert in Policy

===Policy: ==

From: src_host
To: to_host
Service: http
Interface: eth0
Direction: IN
Action: Chain eth1_out

=== eth1_out ===

From: (empty)
To: (empty)
Service (empty)
Direction: OUT
Interface: eth1
Action: ACCEPT

From: (empty)
To: (empty)
Service (empty)
Direction: (empty)
Interface: (empty)
Action: DENY

but perhabs there is a nice way to do it?

Best Regads
Sven Anders

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day
trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus on
what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with
Crystal Reports now. http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july
_______________________________________________
Fwbuilder-discussion mailing list
Fwbuilder-discussion@...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fwbuilder-discussion

Problems installing firewall builder

2009-11-12T19:23:11Z

Hi,

I've installed Centos 5.4 x86_64 into my local server for the company I'm working for. I did not disable firewall during this installation. Now I have to set up firewall into my server because of security reasons. So I tried installing firewall builder but had problems doing so.

These are the steps I followed to install firewall builder into my system. (to include dependancies) :

Referring to the link : http://www.fwbuilder.org//docs/firewall_builder_packages.html

I created a Firewall Builder RPM packages repository as mentioned below:

1. Created file: vi /etc/yum.repos.d/fwbuilder.repo

2. Included the below mentioned contents:

[fwbuilder]
name=Firewall Builder
failovermethod=priority
baseurl=http://www.fwbuilder.org/rpm/stable/rhel-$releasever-$basearch
enabled=1

3. wget http://www.fwbuilder.org/PACKAGE-GPG-KEY-fwbuilder.asc
rpm --import PACKAGE-GPG-KEY-fwbuilder.asc

4. Then yum install fwbuilder

I was returned with the following error :

http://www.fwbuilder.org/rpm/stable/rhel-5-x86_64/repodata/repomd.xml: [Errno 14] HTTP Error 404: Not Found
Trying other mirror.
Error: Cannot retrieve repository metadata (repomd.xml) for repository: fwbuilder. Please verify its path and try again

Pls help me resolve this problem. Is it because I did not disable the firewall during Centos installation?

v3.08 build 1687

2009-11-06T08:45:06Z

this build is available for download, "tewsting" repositories have
been updated.

The build includes .deb packages for Ubuntu Karmic (only i386 just
yet) and fixes for two recently reported bugs:

* NATCompiler_pf.cpp (NATCompiler_pf::compile): fixed bug
#2889579: "fwb_pf crash when unnumbered interface is used in nat
rule". Compiler for PF crashed when unnumbered interface was used
in TSrc element of a NAT rule.

* PolicyCompiler_PrintRule.cpp (PrintRule::_printSrcAddr): Fixed
bug #2892100: "'Old boradcast' object produces 0/0 in iptables
script". The bug triggered when iptables version was set to 1.3.x
or later. "Old broadcast" object is defined as AddressRange with
0.0.0.0 as a start and end addresses of the range. Generated
script should have "0.0.0.0" but the compiler uses "0/0" instead.

--vk

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day
trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus on
what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with
Crystal Reports now. http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july
_______________________________________________
Fwbuilder-discussion mailing list
Fwbuilder-discussion@...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fwbuilder-discussion

Re: old-broadcast

2009-11-04T04:45:22Z

Joost,

we haven't figured out what is going on here. Please help me help you, if this is really a bug, I need more information to reproduce it and then fix it. Could you send your data file to me ? If not, please create a small data file with an example that demonstrates the problem.

--vk

On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 8:25 AM, Vadim Kurland <vadim@...> wrote:

On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 8:18 AM, Joost Wolthuis <J.Wolthuis@...> wrote:

Vadim,

It is from the standard library. It is however an upgraded firewall from 2.x

in this case I need to see the rule and firewall object. Could you send the data file (.fwb) to me ? If not, please put together a small example file to reproduce the problem.

--vk

Best regards / Met vriendelijke groet,

Joost Wolthuis

-----
Sr. Product Specialist | Telecats bv | KvK Enschede 06069106 | Support: 053 488 99 20 | Tel direct: 053 488 99 15 | Fax: 053 488 99 10 | E‑mail: j.wolthuis@... |

P Please consider the environment and don't print this e-mail unless you really need to

From: vadim@... [mailto:vadim@...] On Behalf Of Vadim Kurland
Sent: donderdag 29 oktober 2009 18:23
To: Joost Wolthuis
Cc: Fwbuilder List (E-mail)
Subject: Re: [Fwbuilder-discussion] old-broadcast

Joost,

I can't reproduce this with 3.0.7. Are you using object "old broadcast" that is defined in the Standard objects library ? This object is defined as address range (for historical reasons). Is this what you are using ? I get the following iptables command when I try:

$IPTABLES -A OUTPUT -d 0.0.0.0 -j DROP

If you use the standard object and still get -d 0/0 , please send a test .fwb file to me that demonstrates the problem.

--vk

On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 1:35 PM, Joost Wolthuis <J.Wolthuis@...> wrote:

Hi,

I just upgrade to firewallbuilder version 3

Found a small problem however.

We still used the predefined object “old-broadcast”

During generation the is a significant other rule generated. The v3.07 rule is NOT correct.

Version 2.19 -> $IPTABLES -A OUTPUT -d 0.0.0.0 -j DROP

Version 3.07 -> $IPTABLES -A OUTPUT -d 0/0 -j DROP

I removed the old-broadcast object from my firewalls but it might a fixed in the future.

Best regards / Met vriendelijke groet,

Joost Wolthuis

-----
Sr. Product Specialist | Telecats bv | KvK Enschede 06069106 | Support: 053 488 99 20 | Tel direct: 053 488 99 15 | Fax: 053 488 99 10 | E‑mail: j.wolthuis@... |

P Please consider the environment and don't print this e-mail unless you really need to

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Come build with us! The BlackBerry(R) Developer Conference in SF, CA
is the only developer event you need to attend this year. Jumpstart your
developing skills, take BlackBerry mobile applications to market and stay
ahead of the curve. Join us from November 9 - 12, 2009. Register now!
http://p.sf.net/sfu/devconference
_______________________________________________
Fwbuilder-discussion mailing list
Fwbuilder-discussion@...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fwbuilder-discussion

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Come build with us! The BlackBerry(R) Developer Conference in SF, CA
is the only developer event you need to attend this year. Jumpstart your
developing skills, take BlackBerry mobile applications to market and stay
ahead of the curve. Join us from November 9 - 12, 2009. Register now!
http://p.sf.net/sfu/devconference
_______________________________________________
Fwbuilder-discussion mailing list
Fwbuilder-discussion@...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fwbuilder-discussion

Re: Problem getting ip phones to work with iptables.

2009-11-01T21:25:50Z

On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 6:07 AM, Tom Diehl <tdiehl@...> wrote:

Hi Vadim,

On Sun, 1 Nov 2009, Vadim Kurland wrote:

Hi Tom,

On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 5:38 PM, Tom Diehl <tdiehl@...> wrote:

the NAT rule looks correct to me. Please try iptables -L -n to check the

actual loaded rules right after reboot just to see what is there really.

Ok, now I am really confused!

After making the above changes, the packets are never seeing the
fwb(t-ports -> foneswt) rule according to the log entry below.

Nov 1 07:49:40 router.mchugh2.local kernel: fwb(DROPnLOG) IN=eth0.1 OUT=
MAC=00:21:29:71:25:59:00:90:1a:a0:b4:e0:08:00:45:08:00:44 SRC=71.199.26.14
DST=72.99.50.76 LEN=68 TOS=0x08 PREC=0x00 TTL=123 ID=21930 DF PROTO=UDP
SPT=59147 DPT=59101 LEN=48

The DROPnLOG rule is a catchall rule. It simply says any, any, any, deny.
It is
the last rule.

iptables -L -n shows the following:

RULE_28 udp -- 0.0.0.0/0 192.168.1.12 udp dpt:59101
state NEW
RULE_28 udp -- 0.0.0.0/0 192.168.1.12 udp dpt:59101
state NEW

Since iptables -L -n does not show the NAT rule, I also ran iptables-save
it shows the
following:

you can get nat rules using iptables -t nat -L -n

If you add -v, it will also print hit counter for each rule.

-A PREROUTING -d 72.99.50.76 -p udp -m udp --dport 59101 -j DNAT
--to-destination 192.168.1.12
-A FORWARD -d 192.168.1.12 -p udp -m udp --dport 59101 -m state --state NEW
-j RULE_28
-A OUTPUT -d 192.168.1.12 -p udp -m udp --dport 59101 -m state --state NEW
-j RULE_28

these seem to be correct. The log entry indicates that the packet never
matched the NAT rule so its address never got translated and therefore the
packet did not match any policy rule.

Try iptables -t nat -L -n -v to see what nat rules you really have there. I
assume you did check that the address 72.99.50.76 used in the rule really
matches address of eth0.1, right ?

Yes, the address is correct. I just double checked.

iptables -t nat -L -n -v shows the following:

root@router:~# iptables -t nat -L -n -v
Chain PREROUTING (policy ACCEPT 19988 packets, 2143K bytes)
pkts bytes target prot opt in out source destination

0 0 DNAT udp -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 72.99.50.76 udp dpt:59101 to:192.168.1.12

As you can see the above shows no hits, yet the log entry says we are dropping
59101. This makes no sense to me.

Do you have any more ideas? I am at a loss at this point.

could there be another nat rule in the PREROUTING chain that matches the same source - destination - protocol above this one? Can I see the whole list ?

Regards,

--
Tom Diehl tdiehl@... Spamtrap address mtd123@...

--vk

Do you see a problem with the above? They look OK to me but iptables rules
make my brain hurt. That is why I use fwb. :-)

Thanks for looking into this.

Regards,

--
Tom Diehl tdiehl@... Spamtrap address
mtd123@...

--vk

On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 5:44 AM, Tom Diehl <tdiehl@...> wrote:

Hi,

I have a network that has 1 public ip address say 72.99.50.76 The router
uses
nat to access various machines on the internal network of 192.168.1.0/24
.
They have a couple of ip phones that access their phone switch from the
internet. The phone switch has an internal address of 192.168.1.12.

The problem I am seeing is that when I reboot the router the ip phones
refuse
to connect to the phone switch for 3-4 days after the reboot. Then all of
the
sudden the phones sync up and all is well until we reboot the router
again.

I have looked at the packets with tcpdump when the phones will not
connect
and
the packets are getting dropped on the external interface.

I have a .fw file with the following iptables rules in it:

# Rule 4 (NAT)
#
echo "Rule 4 (NAT)"
#
# dnat rule fone-swt -> remote fone
$IPTABLES -t nat -A PREROUTING -p udp -m udp -s ! 192.168.1.0/24 -d
72.99.50.76 --dport 59101 -j DNAT --to-destination 192.168.1.12
#

The above rule in fwbuilder looks like this:

Orig src Orig dst orig svc translated svc
translated src translated dst
!192.168.1.0/24 72.99.50.76 udp 59101 Original
Original 192.168.1.12

#
echo "Rule 28 (global)"
#
# Ports fwded to the fone swt
#
$IPTABLES -N RULE_28
$IPTABLES -A OUTPUT -p udp -m udp -s ! 192.168.1.0/24 -d 72.99.50.76
--dport 59101 -m state --state NEW -j RULE_28
$IPTABLES -A OUTPUT -p udp -m udp -s ! 192.168.1.0/24 -d 192.168.1.12
--dport 59101 -m state --state NEW -j RULE_28
$IPTABLES -A INPUT -p udp -m udp -s ! 192.168.1.0/24 -d 72.99.50.76
--dport 59101 -m state --state NEW -j RULE_28
$IPTABLES -A FORWARD -p udp -m udp -s ! 192.168.1.0/24 -d
192.168.1.12
--dport 59101 -m state --state NEW -j RULE_28
$IPTABLES -A RULE_28 -j LOG --log-level warning --log-prefix
"fwb(t-ports
-> foneswt)"
$IPTABLES -A RULE_28 -j ACCEPT

The above rule in fwbuilder looks like this:

src dst service interface
direction action
!192.168.1.0/24 192.168.1.12 and the ext int udp 59101 all
both allow. logging is enabled.

When the phones will not sync, I get the following log entries in the
syslog:
Nov 1 00:04:16 router.mchugh2.local kernel: fwb(t-ports ->
foneswt)IN=eth0.1 OUT=
MAC=00:21:29:71:25:59:00:90:1a:a0:b4:e0:08:00:45:08:00:44
SRC=71.199.26.14
DST=72.99.50.76 LEN=68 TOS=0x08 PREC=0x00 TTL=123 ID=21930 DF PROTO=UDP
SPT=59147 DPT=59101 LEN=48

Once the phones sync, the above log entries go away.

According to the phone vendor, all I need for the phones to work is udp
59101
natted from the outside to the internal ip address of the phone switch.
We
confirmed this is true when we had the phones synced up. One thing that
seems
strange is that a given ip phone always uses the same source port when
trying
to connect to the phone switch via udp 59101. I suspect that this is how
the
switch identifies which phone it is talking to but I could be wrong.

Does anyone have any idea what I am doing wrong?

Does this even make sense?

Note, public ip addresses have been obscured.

Regards,

--
Tom Diehl tdiehl@... Spamtrap address
mtd123@...

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Come build with us! The BlackBerry(R) Developer Conference in SF, CA
is the only developer event you need to attend this year. Jumpstart your
developing skills, take BlackBerry mobile applications to market and stay
ahead of the curve. Join us from November 9 - 12, 2009. Register now!
http://p.sf.net/sfu/devconference
_______________________________________________
Fwbuilder-discussion mailing list
Fwbuilder-discussion@...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fwbuilder-discussion

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Come build with us! The BlackBerry(R) Developer Conference in SF, CA
is the only developer event you need to attend this year. Jumpstart your
developing skills, take BlackBerry mobile applications to market and stay
ahead of the curve. Join us from November 9 - 12, 2009. Register now!
http://p.sf.net/sfu/devconference
_______________________________________________
Fwbuilder-discussion mailing list
Fwbuilder-discussion@...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fwbuilder-discussion

Re: Problem getting ip phones to work with iptables.

2009-11-01T21:07:49Z

Hi Vadim,

On Sun, 1 Nov 2009, Vadim Kurland wrote:

> Hi Tom,
>
>
> On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 5:38 PM, Tom Diehl <tdiehl@...> wrote:
>
>>
>> the NAT rule looks correct to me. Please try iptables -L -n to check the
>>> actual loaded rules right after reboot just to see what is there really.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Ok, now I am really confused!
>>
>> After making the above changes, the packets are never seeing the
>> fwb(t-ports -> foneswt) rule according to the log entry below.
>>
>> Nov 1 07:49:40 router.mchugh2.local kernel: fwb(DROPnLOG) IN=eth0.1 OUT=
>> MAC=00:21:29:71:25:59:00:90:1a:a0:b4:e0:08:00:45:08:00:44 SRC=71.199.26.14
>> DST=72.99.50.76 LEN=68 TOS=0x08 PREC=0x00 TTL=123 ID=21930 DF PROTO=UDP
>> SPT=59147 DPT=59101 LEN=48
>>
>> The DROPnLOG rule is a catchall rule. It simply says any, any, any, deny.
>> It is
>> the last rule.
>>
>> iptables -L -n shows the following:
>>
>> RULE_28 udp -- 0.0.0.0/0 192.168.1.12 udp dpt:59101
>> state NEW
>> RULE_28 udp -- 0.0.0.0/0 192.168.1.12 udp dpt:59101
>> state NEW
>>
>> Since iptables -L -n does not show the NAT rule, I also ran iptables-save
>> it shows the
>> following:
>>
>>
> you can get nat rules using iptables -t nat -L -n
>
> If you add -v, it will also print hit counter for each rule.
>
>
>
>
>> -A PREROUTING -d 72.99.50.76 -p udp -m udp --dport 59101 -j DNAT
>> --to-destination 192.168.1.12
>> -A FORWARD -d 192.168.1.12 -p udp -m udp --dport 59101 -m state --state NEW
>> -j RULE_28
>> -A OUTPUT -d 192.168.1.12 -p udp -m udp --dport 59101 -m state --state NEW
>> -j RULE_28
>>
>>
> these seem to be correct. The log entry indicates that the packet never
> matched the NAT rule so its address never got translated and therefore the
> packet did not match any policy rule.
>
> Try iptables -t nat -L -n -v to see what nat rules you really have there. I
> assume you did check that the address 72.99.50.76 used in the rule really
> matches address of eth0.1, right ?

Yes, the address is correct. I just double checked.

iptables -t nat -L -n -v shows the following:

root@router:~# iptables -t nat -L -n -v
Chain PREROUTING (policy ACCEPT 19988 packets, 2143K bytes)
pkts bytes target prot opt in out source destination

0 0 DNAT udp -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 72.99.50.76 udp dpt:59101 to:192.168.1.12

As you can see the above shows no hits, yet the log entry says we are dropping
59101. This makes no sense to me.

Do you have any more ideas? I am at a loss at this point.

Regards,

--
Tom Diehl tdiehl@... Spamtrap address mtd123@...

>
> --vk
>
>
>
>> Do you see a problem with the above? They look OK to me but iptables rules
>> make my brain hurt. That is why I use fwb. :-)
>>
>> Thanks for looking into this.
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> --
>> Tom Diehl tdiehl@... Spamtrap address
>> mtd123@...
>>
>>
>>
>>> --vk
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 5:44 AM, Tom Diehl <tdiehl@...> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I have a network that has 1 public ip address say 72.99.50.76 The router
>>>> uses
>>>> nat to access various machines on the internal network of 192.168.1.0/24
>>>> .
>>>> They have a couple of ip phones that access their phone switch from the
>>>> internet. The phone switch has an internal address of 192.168.1.12.
>>>>
>>>> The problem I am seeing is that when I reboot the router the ip phones
>>>> refuse
>>>> to connect to the phone switch for 3-4 days after the reboot. Then all of
>>>> the
>>>> sudden the phones sync up and all is well until we reboot the router
>>>> again.
>>>>
>>>> I have looked at the packets with tcpdump when the phones will not
>>>> connect
>>>> and
>>>> the packets are getting dropped on the external interface.
>>>>
>>>> I have a .fw file with the following iptables rules in it:
>>>>
>>>> # Rule 4 (NAT)
>>>> #
>>>> echo "Rule 4 (NAT)"
>>>> #
>>>> # dnat rule fone-swt -> remote fone
>>>> $IPTABLES -t nat -A PREROUTING -p udp -m udp -s ! 192.168.1.0/24 -d
>>>> 72.99.50.76 --dport 59101 -j DNAT --to-destination 192.168.1.12
>>>> #
>>>>
>>>> The above rule in fwbuilder looks like this:
>>>>
>>>> Orig src Orig dst orig svc translated svc
>>>> translated src translated dst
>>>> !192.168.1.0/24 72.99.50.76 udp 59101 Original
>>>> Original 192.168.1.12
>>>>
>>>> #
>>>> echo "Rule 28 (global)"
>>>> #
>>>> # Ports fwded to the fone swt
>>>> #
>>>> $IPTABLES -N RULE_28
>>>> $IPTABLES -A OUTPUT -p udp -m udp -s ! 192.168.1.0/24 -d 72.99.50.76
>>>> --dport 59101 -m state --state NEW -j RULE_28
>>>> $IPTABLES -A OUTPUT -p udp -m udp -s ! 192.168.1.0/24 -d 192.168.1.12
>>>> --dport 59101 -m state --state NEW -j RULE_28
>>>> $IPTABLES -A INPUT -p udp -m udp -s ! 192.168.1.0/24 -d 72.99.50.76
>>>> --dport 59101 -m state --state NEW -j RULE_28
>>>> $IPTABLES -A FORWARD -p udp -m udp -s ! 192.168.1.0/24 -d
>>>> 192.168.1.12
>>>> --dport 59101 -m state --state NEW -j RULE_28
>>>> $IPTABLES -A RULE_28 -j LOG --log-level warning --log-prefix
>>>> "fwb(t-ports
>>>> -> foneswt)"
>>>> $IPTABLES -A RULE_28 -j ACCEPT
>>>>
>>>> The above rule in fwbuilder looks like this:
>>>>
>>>> src dst service interface
>>>> direction action
>>>> !192.168.1.0/24 192.168.1.12 and the ext int udp 59101 all
>>>> both allow. logging is enabled.
>>>>
>>>> When the phones will not sync, I get the following log entries in the
>>>> syslog:
>>>> Nov 1 00:04:16 router.mchugh2.local kernel: fwb(t-ports ->
>>>> foneswt)IN=eth0.1 OUT=
>>>> MAC=00:21:29:71:25:59:00:90:1a:a0:b4:e0:08:00:45:08:00:44
>>>> SRC=71.199.26.14
>>>> DST=72.99.50.76 LEN=68 TOS=0x08 PREC=0x00 TTL=123 ID=21930 DF PROTO=UDP
>>>> SPT=59147 DPT=59101 LEN=48
>>>>
>>>> Once the phones sync, the above log entries go away.
>>>>
>>>> According to the phone vendor, all I need for the phones to work is udp
>>>> 59101
>>>> natted from the outside to the internal ip address of the phone switch.
>>>> We
>>>> confirmed this is true when we had the phones synced up. One thing that
>>>> seems
>>>> strange is that a given ip phone always uses the same source port when
>>>> trying
>>>> to connect to the phone switch via udp 59101. I suspect that this is how
>>>> the
>>>> switch identifies which phone it is talking to but I could be wrong.
>>>>
>>>> Does anyone have any idea what I am doing wrong?
>>>>
>>>> Does this even make sense?
>>>>
>>>> Note, public ip addresses have been obscured.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Tom Diehl tdiehl@... Spamtrap address
>>>> mtd123@...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> Come build with us! The BlackBerry(R) Developer Conference in SF, CA
>>>> is the only developer event you need to attend this year. Jumpstart your
>>>> developing skills, take BlackBerry mobile applications to market and stay
>>>> ahead of the curve. Join us from November 9 - 12, 2009. Register now!
>>>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/devconference
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Fwbuilder-discussion mailing list
>>>> Fwbuilder-discussion@...
>>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fwbuilder-discussion
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>

Re: Problem getting ip phones to work with iptables.

2009-11-01T08:50:31Z

Hi Tom,

On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 5:38 PM, Tom Diehl <tdiehl@...> wrote:

the NAT rule looks correct to me. Please try iptables -L -n to check the
actual loaded rules right after reboot just to see what is there really.

Ok, now I am really confused!

After making the above changes, the packets are never seeing the
fwb(t-ports -> foneswt) rule according to the log entry below.

Nov 1 07:49:40 router.mchugh2.local kernel: fwb(DROPnLOG) IN=eth0.1 OUT= MAC=00:21:29:71:25:59:00:90:1a:a0:b4:e0:08:00:45:08:00:44 SRC=71.199.26.14 DST=72.99.50.76 LEN=68 TOS=0x08 PREC=0x00 TTL=123 ID=21930 DF PROTO=UDP SPT=59147 DPT=59101 LEN=48

The DROPnLOG rule is a catchall rule. It simply says any, any, any, deny. It is
the last rule.

iptables -L -n shows the following:

RULE_28 udp -- 0.0.0.0/0 192.168.1.12 udp dpt:59101 state NEW
RULE_28 udp -- 0.0.0.0/0 192.168.1.12 udp dpt:59101 state NEW

Since iptables -L -n does not show the NAT rule, I also ran iptables-save it shows the
following:

you can get nat rules using iptables -t nat -L -n

If you add -v, it will also print hit counter for each rule.

-A PREROUTING -d 72.99.50.76 -p udp -m udp --dport 59101 -j DNAT --to-destination 192.168.1.12
-A FORWARD -d 192.168.1.12 -p udp -m udp --dport 59101 -m state --state NEW -j RULE_28
-A OUTPUT -d 192.168.1.12 -p udp -m udp --dport 59101 -m state --state NEW -j RULE_28

these seem to be correct. The log entry indicates that the packet never matched the NAT rule so its address never got translated and therefore the packet did not match any policy rule.

Try iptables -t nat -L -n -v to see what nat rules you really have there. I assume you did check that the address 72.99.50.76 used in the rule really matches address of eth0.1, right ?

--vk

Do you see a problem with the above? They look OK to me but iptables rules
make my brain hurt. That is why I use fwb. :-)

Thanks for looking into this.

Regards,

--
Tom Diehl tdiehl@... Spamtrap address mtd123@...

--vk

On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 5:44 AM, Tom Diehl <tdiehl@...> wrote:

Hi,

I have a network that has 1 public ip address say 72.99.50.76 The router
uses
nat to access various machines on the internal network of 192.168.1.0/24.
They have a couple of ip phones that access their phone switch from the
internet. The phone switch has an internal address of 192.168.1.12.

The problem I am seeing is that when I reboot the router the ip phones
refuse
to connect to the phone switch for 3-4 days after the reboot. Then all of
the
sudden the phones sync up and all is well until we reboot the router again.

I have looked at the packets with tcpdump when the phones will not connect
and
the packets are getting dropped on the external interface.

I have a .fw file with the following iptables rules in it:

# Rule 4 (NAT)
#
echo "Rule 4 (NAT)"
#
# dnat rule fone-swt -> remote fone
$IPTABLES -t nat -A PREROUTING -p udp -m udp -s ! 192.168.1.0/24 -d
72.99.50.76 --dport 59101 -j DNAT --to-destination 192.168.1.12
#

The above rule in fwbuilder looks like this:

Orig src Orig dst orig svc translated svc
translated src translated dst
!192.168.1.0/24 72.99.50.76 udp 59101 Original
Original 192.168.1.12

#
echo "Rule 28 (global)"
#
# Ports fwded to the fone swt
#
$IPTABLES -N RULE_28
$IPTABLES -A OUTPUT -p udp -m udp -s ! 192.168.1.0/24 -d 72.99.50.76
--dport 59101 -m state --state NEW -j RULE_28
$IPTABLES -A OUTPUT -p udp -m udp -s ! 192.168.1.0/24 -d 192.168.1.12
--dport 59101 -m state --state NEW -j RULE_28
$IPTABLES -A INPUT -p udp -m udp -s ! 192.168.1.0/24 -d 72.99.50.76
--dport 59101 -m state --state NEW -j RULE_28
$IPTABLES -A FORWARD -p udp -m udp -s ! 192.168.1.0/24 -d 192.168.1.12
--dport 59101 -m state --state NEW -j RULE_28
$IPTABLES -A RULE_28 -j LOG --log-level warning --log-prefix "fwb(t-ports
-> foneswt)"
$IPTABLES -A RULE_28 -j ACCEPT

The above rule in fwbuilder looks like this:

src dst service interface
direction action
!192.168.1.0/24 192.168.1.12 and the ext int udp 59101 all
both allow. logging is enabled.

When the phones will not sync, I get the following log entries in the
syslog:
Nov 1 00:04:16 router.mchugh2.local kernel: fwb(t-ports ->
foneswt)IN=eth0.1 OUT=
MAC=00:21:29:71:25:59:00:90:1a:a0:b4:e0:08:00:45:08:00:44 SRC=71.199.26.14
DST=72.99.50.76 LEN=68 TOS=0x08 PREC=0x00 TTL=123 ID=21930 DF PROTO=UDP
SPT=59147 DPT=59101 LEN=48

Once the phones sync, the above log entries go away.

According to the phone vendor, all I need for the phones to work is udp
59101
natted from the outside to the internal ip address of the phone switch. We
confirmed this is true when we had the phones synced up. One thing that
seems
strange is that a given ip phone always uses the same source port when
trying
to connect to the phone switch via udp 59101. I suspect that this is how
the
switch identifies which phone it is talking to but I could be wrong.

Does anyone have any idea what I am doing wrong?

Does this even make sense?

Note, public ip addresses have been obscured.

Regards,

--
Tom Diehl tdiehl@... Spamtrap address
mtd123@...

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Come build with us! The BlackBerry(R) Developer Conference in SF, CA
is the only developer event you need to attend this year. Jumpstart your
developing skills, take BlackBerry mobile applications to market and stay
ahead of the curve. Join us from November 9 - 12, 2009. Register now!
http://p.sf.net/sfu/devconference
_______________________________________________
Fwbuilder-discussion mailing list
Fwbuilder-discussion@...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fwbuilder-discussion

Re: Problem getting ip phones to work with iptables.

2009-11-01T08:38:57Z

Hi Vadim,

On Sun, 1 Nov 2009, Vadim Kurland wrote:

> Tom,
>
> first of all, you should not need to use external interface object in the
> policy rule 28 because NAT happens before the filtering. So the filter rule
> should always see internal address 192.168.1.12. If it sees external
> address, then NAT did not happen for whatever reason.

I agree, I am not sure why I did that.

>
> You should not need to use !192.168.1.0/24 in the source of nat and
> filtering rules either, unless you have some internal machines on this net
> hitting the firewall trying to reach back onto the same subnet. That
> happens, but is unusual.

OK, I dropped those also. Both policy rule 28 and NAT rule 4 now say src any.

> Basically, I always try to simplify rules as much as possible as a first
> step to remove all factors that could interfere to make debugging easier.
>
> the log entry lists ingress interface eth0.1 . What is it, is it vlan ? Is
> this correct external interface ?

Yes, the box is a wrt54GL running openwrt kamikaze.

> the NAT rule looks correct to me. Please try iptables -L -n to check the
> actual loaded rules right after reboot just to see what is there really.

Ok, now I am really confused!

After making the above changes, the packets are never seeing the
fwb(t-ports -> foneswt) rule according to the log entry below.

Nov 1 07:49:40 router.mchugh2.local kernel: fwb(DROPnLOG) IN=eth0.1 OUT= MAC=00:21:29:71:25:59:00:90:1a:a0:b4:e0:08:00:45:08:00:44 SRC=71.199.26.14 DST=72.99.50.76 LEN=68 TOS=0x08 PREC=0x00 TTL=123 ID=21930 DF PROTO=UDP SPT=59147 DPT=59101 LEN=48

The DROPnLOG rule is a catchall rule. It simply says any, any, any, deny. It is
the last rule.

iptables -L -n shows the following:

RULE_28 udp -- 0.0.0.0/0 192.168.1.12 udp dpt:59101 state NEW
RULE_28 udp -- 0.0.0.0/0 192.168.1.12 udp dpt:59101 state NEW

Since iptables -L -n does not show the NAT rule, I also ran iptables-save it shows the
following:

-A PREROUTING -d 72.99.50.76 -p udp -m udp --dport 59101 -j DNAT --to-destination 192.168.1.12
-A FORWARD -d 192.168.1.12 -p udp -m udp --dport 59101 -m state --state NEW -j RULE_28
-A OUTPUT -d 192.168.1.12 -p udp -m udp --dport 59101 -m state --state NEW -j RULE_28

Do you see a problem with the above? They look OK to me but iptables rules
make my brain hurt. That is why I use fwb. :-)

Thanks for looking into this.

Regards,

--
Tom Diehl tdiehl@... Spamtrap address mtd123@...

>
> --vk
>
>
> On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 5:44 AM, Tom Diehl <tdiehl@...> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I have a network that has 1 public ip address say 72.99.50.76 The router
>> uses
>> nat to access various machines on the internal network of 192.168.1.0/24.
>> They have a couple of ip phones that access their phone switch from the
>> internet. The phone switch has an internal address of 192.168.1.12.
>>
>> The problem I am seeing is that when I reboot the router the ip phones
>> refuse
>> to connect to the phone switch for 3-4 days after the reboot. Then all of
>> the
>> sudden the phones sync up and all is well until we reboot the router again.
>>
>> I have looked at the packets with tcpdump when the phones will not connect
>> and
>> the packets are getting dropped on the external interface.
>>
>> I have a .fw file with the following iptables rules in it:
>>
>> # Rule 4 (NAT)
>> #
>> echo "Rule 4 (NAT)"
>> #
>> # dnat rule fone-swt -> remote fone
>> $IPTABLES -t nat -A PREROUTING -p udp -m udp -s ! 192.168.1.0/24 -d
>> 72.99.50.76 --dport 59101 -j DNAT --to-destination 192.168.1.12
>> #
>>
>> The above rule in fwbuilder looks like this:
>>
>> Orig src Orig dst orig svc translated svc
>> translated src translated dst
>> !192.168.1.0/24 72.99.50.76 udp 59101 Original
>> Original 192.168.1.12
>>
>> #
>> echo "Rule 28 (global)"
>> #
>> # Ports fwded to the fone swt
>> #
>> $IPTABLES -N RULE_28
>> $IPTABLES -A OUTPUT -p udp -m udp -s ! 192.168.1.0/24 -d 72.99.50.76
>> --dport 59101 -m state --state NEW -j RULE_28
>> $IPTABLES -A OUTPUT -p udp -m udp -s ! 192.168.1.0/24 -d 192.168.1.12
>> --dport 59101 -m state --state NEW -j RULE_28
>> $IPTABLES -A INPUT -p udp -m udp -s ! 192.168.1.0/24 -d 72.99.50.76
>> --dport 59101 -m state --state NEW -j RULE_28
>> $IPTABLES -A FORWARD -p udp -m udp -s ! 192.168.1.0/24 -d 192.168.1.12
>> --dport 59101 -m state --state NEW -j RULE_28
>> $IPTABLES -A RULE_28 -j LOG --log-level warning --log-prefix "fwb(t-ports
>> -> foneswt)"
>> $IPTABLES -A RULE_28 -j ACCEPT
>>
>> The above rule in fwbuilder looks like this:
>>
>> src dst service interface
>> direction action
>> !192.168.1.0/24 192.168.1.12 and the ext int udp 59101 all
>> both allow. logging is enabled.
>>
>> When the phones will not sync, I get the following log entries in the
>> syslog:
>> Nov 1 00:04:16 router.mchugh2.local kernel: fwb(t-ports ->
>> foneswt)IN=eth0.1 OUT=
>> MAC=00:21:29:71:25:59:00:90:1a:a0:b4:e0:08:00:45:08:00:44 SRC=71.199.26.14
>> DST=72.99.50.76 LEN=68 TOS=0x08 PREC=0x00 TTL=123 ID=21930 DF PROTO=UDP
>> SPT=59147 DPT=59101 LEN=48
>>
>> Once the phones sync, the above log entries go away.
>>
>> According to the phone vendor, all I need for the phones to work is udp
>> 59101
>> natted from the outside to the internal ip address of the phone switch. We
>> confirmed this is true when we had the phones synced up. One thing that
>> seems
>> strange is that a given ip phone always uses the same source port when
>> trying
>> to connect to the phone switch via udp 59101. I suspect that this is how
>> the
>> switch identifies which phone it is talking to but I could be wrong.
>>
>> Does anyone have any idea what I am doing wrong?
>>
>> Does this even make sense?
>>
>> Note, public ip addresses have been obscured.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> --
>> Tom Diehl tdiehl@... Spamtrap address
>> mtd123@...
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Come build with us! The BlackBerry(R) Developer Conference in SF, CA
>> is the only developer event you need to attend this year. Jumpstart your
>> developing skills, take BlackBerry mobile applications to market and stay
>> ahead of the curve. Join us from November 9 - 12, 2009. Register now!
>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/devconference
>> _______________________________________________
>> Fwbuilder-discussion mailing list
>> Fwbuilder-discussion@...
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fwbuilder-discussion
>>
>

Re: Problem getting ip phones to work with iptables.

2009-10-31T22:50:31Z

Tom,

first of all, you should not need to use external interface object in the policy rule 28 because NAT happens before the filtering. So the filter rule should always see internal address 192.168.1.12. If it sees external address, then NAT did not happen for whatever reason.

You should not need to use !192.168.1.0/24 in the source of nat and filtering rules either, unless you have some internal machines on this net hitting the firewall trying to reach back onto the same subnet. That happens, but is unusual.

Basically, I always try to simplify rules as much as possible as a first step to remove all factors that could interfere to make debugging easier.

the log entry lists ingress interface eth0.1 . What is it, is it vlan ? Is this correct external interface ?

the NAT rule looks correct to me. Please try iptables -L -n to check the actual loaded rules right after reboot just to see what is there really.

--vk

On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 5:44 AM, Tom Diehl <tdiehl@...> wrote:

Hi,

I have a network that has 1 public ip address say 72.99.50.76 The router uses
nat to access various machines on the internal network of 192.168.1.0/24.
They have a couple of ip phones that access their phone switch from the
internet. The phone switch has an internal address of 192.168.1.12.

The problem I am seeing is that when I reboot the router the ip phones refuse
to connect to the phone switch for 3-4 days after the reboot. Then all of the
sudden the phones sync up and all is well until we reboot the router again.

I have looked at the packets with tcpdump when the phones will not connect and
the packets are getting dropped on the external interface.

I have a .fw file with the following iptables rules in it:

# Rule 4 (NAT)
#
echo "Rule 4 (NAT)"
#
# dnat rule fone-swt -> remote fone
$IPTABLES -t nat -A PREROUTING -p udp -m udp -s ! 192.168.1.0/24 -d 72.99.50.76 --dport 59101 -j DNAT --to-destination 192.168.1.12
#

The above rule in fwbuilder looks like this:

Orig src Orig dst orig svc translated svc translated src translated dst
!192.168.1.0/24 72.99.50.76 udp 59101 Original Original 192.168.1.12

#
echo "Rule 28 (global)"
#
# Ports fwded to the fone swt
#
$IPTABLES -N RULE_28
$IPTABLES -A OUTPUT -p udp -m udp -s ! 192.168.1.0/24 -d 72.99.50.76 --dport 59101 -m state --state NEW -j RULE_28
$IPTABLES -A OUTPUT -p udp -m udp -s ! 192.168.1.0/24 -d 192.168.1.12 --dport 59101 -m state --state NEW -j RULE_28
$IPTABLES -A INPUT -p udp -m udp -s ! 192.168.1.0/24 -d 72.99.50.76 --dport 59101 -m state --state NEW -j RULE_28
$IPTABLES -A FORWARD -p udp -m udp -s ! 192.168.1.0/24 -d 192.168.1.12 --dport 59101 -m state --state NEW -j RULE_28
$IPTABLES -A RULE_28 -j LOG --log-level warning --log-prefix "fwb(t-ports -> foneswt)"
$IPTABLES -A RULE_28 -j ACCEPT

The above rule in fwbuilder looks like this:

src dst service interface direction action
!192.168.1.0/24 192.168.1.12 and the ext int udp 59101 all both allow. logging is enabled.

When the phones will not sync, I get the following log entries in the syslog:
Nov 1 00:04:16 router.mchugh2.local kernel: fwb(t-ports -> foneswt)IN=eth0.1 OUT= MAC=00:21:29:71:25:59:00:90:1a:a0:b4:e0:08:00:45:08:00:44 SRC=71.199.26.14 DST=72.99.50.76 LEN=68 TOS=0x08 PREC=0x00 TTL=123 ID=21930 DF PROTO=UDP SPT=59147 DPT=59101 LEN=48

Once the phones sync, the above log entries go away.

According to the phone vendor, all I need for the phones to work is udp 59101
natted from the outside to the internal ip address of the phone switch. We
confirmed this is true when we had the phones synced up. One thing that seems
strange is that a given ip phone always uses the same source port when trying
to connect to the phone switch via udp 59101. I suspect that this is how the
switch identifies which phone it is talking to but I could be wrong.

Does anyone have any idea what I am doing wrong?

Does this even make sense?

Note, public ip addresses have been obscured.

Regards,

--
Tom Diehl tdiehl@... Spamtrap address mtd123@...

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Come build with us! The BlackBerry(R) Developer Conference in SF, CA
is the only developer event you need to attend this year. Jumpstart your
developing skills, take BlackBerry mobile applications to market and stay
ahead of the curve. Join us from November 9 - 12, 2009. Register now!
http://p.sf.net/sfu/devconference
_______________________________________________
Fwbuilder-discussion mailing list
Fwbuilder-discussion@...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fwbuilder-discussion