Re: WAN load balance with PF

2012-11-20 Thread Jon Radel
Yes, use a switch that handles vlans and make use of them. --Jon Radel j...@radel.com Sent from my iPad On Nov 20, 2012, at 2:15, Hooman Fazaeli hoomanfaza...@gmail.com wrote: With a topology like: - ADSL 1 LAN PF Box - Switch

Re: update rules

2011-05-06 Thread Jon Radel
website, in particular something like http://openbsd.org/faq/pf/index.html and then ask follow-up questions on the appropriate OpenBSD mailing list. --Jon Radel j...@radel.com ___ freebsd-pf@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman

Re: For better security: always block all or block in all is enough?

2010-07-28 Thread Jon Radel
, if the firewall is on the server in question, rather than being another piece of equipment, anybody who has root can rearrange your firewall for you -- --Jon Radel j...@radel.com

Re: Question about numbers of connections

2009-05-13 Thread Jon Radel
but mainly just because rather than to solve any particular issue. Without knowing more about the traffic to be put across the machine, about the only real answer is: Try it and see what happens. -- --Jon Radel j...@radel.com smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

OT Spam technology was: Re: The Military, Industrial Complex is no more -- The Hidden Massive Racial Discrimination in America against Whites

2009-01-30 Thread Jon Radel
Ivan Petrushev wrote: So there is not spam protection or whatever installed on the software servicing the mail list? Abuse control? User registration approval? On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 8:46 AM, Jon Radel j...@radel.com wrote: Ivan Petrushev wrote: Excuse me, why such a spam comes

Re: basic rule request - allow_all/block_bad

2009-01-21 Thread Jon Radel
get that running, I'd suggest you start making things fancier with Miroslav's recommendation about using a table, putting in scrub with some of the less agressive options, protecting yourself from packets with spoofed addresses, etc., etc. --Jon Radel

Re: PF syntax error

2008-10-15 Thread Jon Radel
with FreeBSD 7.0 Actually, it is, as is flags S/SA on TCP connections. Those defaults came in with the PF from OpenBSD 4.1, which is what is used in FreeBSD 7.0. --Jon Radel smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Re: PF syntax error

2008-10-15 Thread Jon Radel
character? You're trying to split a single line into two, and that has to be done just so. --Jon Radel smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Re: keeping state on outgoing connections fails (?)

2008-09-03 Thread Jon Radel
Guido van Rooij wrote: On Wed, Sep 03, 2008 at 08:42:52AM -0400, Jon Radel wrote: Guido van Rooij wrote: Setup: FreeBSD 6.3 system with 2 interfaces: ep0 and bge0. ep0: 1.2.3.4/24 bge0: 10.0.0.1/24 ruleset (made as simple as possible): pass in quick on ep0 inet from 1.2.3.1 to 10.0.0.2

Re: keeping state on outgoing connections fails (?)

2008-09-03 Thread Jon Radel
. Then the packet should be sent out via ep0, but it is blocked, as pflogd shows: And does the problem go away when you put a keep state at the end of line 1? --Jon Radel smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Re: keeping state on outgoing connections fails (?)

2008-09-03 Thread Jon Radel
Guido van Rooij wrote: On Wed, Sep 03, 2008 at 09:25:12AM -0400, Jon Radel wrote: I did test the folowing ruleset: pass in quick on ep0 inet from 1.2.3.1 to 10.0.0.2 keep state block drop out log quick on ep0 all pass out quick on bge0 inet proto tcp from 1.2.3.1 to 10.0.0.2

Re: keeping state on outgoing connections fails (?)

2008-09-03 Thread Jon Radel
Guido van Rooij wrote: On Wed, Sep 03, 2008 at 10:13:08AM -0400, Jon Radel wrote: And why is that so? This bascially rules out keep state on outgouing packets on any router-type system. That seems like an unnecessary limitation. What? If you want state, turn it on: block all pass in on ep0

Re: keeping state on outgoing connections fails (?)

2008-09-03 Thread Jon Radel
direction with respect to the router on bge0 and the other direction on ep0, so you'd need separate state entries no matter what you've done with if-bound. --Jon Radel smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Re: UDP weirdness

2008-05-07 Thread Jon Radel
looked at has been silent on whether the default pass rule is expected to establish state (for versions of PF recent enough), and I'm not quite curious enough to build a testbed right now. If anyone knows the answer to this one, please do share. :-) --Jon Radel smime.p7s Description: S/MIME