Milan Obuch wrote: > On Mon, 29 Jun 2015 11:29:32 +0200 > Daniel Hartmeier <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 10:52:01AM +0200, Milan Obuch wrote: > > > > > Does this answerred your question fully or something more would be > > > usefull? > > > > How are you doing ARP? > > > > You're not assigning every address on x.y.26.0/23 as an alias, are > > you? > > > > So who answers ARP requests of the upstream router? > > There is no ARP on routed address block. > > In cisco speak, there is just > > ip route x.y.24.0 255.255.252.0 x.y.3.19 > > statement and that's it. Nothing more. Whole address range from > x.y.24.0 to x.y.27.254 is routed here as it should be. For something > like this ARP would be really evil solution.
That's OK, as long as the NAT network is routed to your PF box it will work. The situation you mentioned in a previous message where you see lots and lots of NAT states for a single public IP address is what I suspected was happening. When you require more NAT states per IP than ephemeral ports you will run into issues because you will run out of NAT space. If the round-robin works with a smaller pool, then I suspect Glebius will be interested. Ian -- Ian Freislich _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-pf To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
