On Thu, Mar 20, 2003 at 09:01:22PM +0100, Srebrenko Sehic wrote: > On Thu, Mar 20, 2003 at 12:32:50PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Okay, I think I'm starting to understand what you want. (because I > > believe we tossed the idea around at the last hackathon) > > Basically, you want a state-creating packet to be able to create state > > on multiple interfaces, like: > > pass in on $ext_if proto tcp from any to $webserver port 80 \ > > keep state on {$ext_if $int_if} flags S/SAFR > > (The way I had envisioned it, this would only occur for the > > state-creating packet, and it would only do so for the interfaces > > indicated.) > > Is this what you mean? > Yes, thank you. I also still mean that pf(4) should not care about > packets going 'out' of an interface, only in, but let's kill this > thread.
I'm close to give up on you wrt to that. SOmehow it seems you don't _want_ to see why the filtering outbond on an interface is so important. I gave a very good example why that is absolutely needed. > Or even better, dis the "keep state on {$ext_if $int_if}"; "keep > state" should be enough, since pf(4) should take care of that. no way. see above. > Now this feature would be _very_ nice. > Any chance this could be implemented, say post 3.3? > Henning? Others? it would be "keep state on { interface-list }", to make that clear. I don't like the idea too much. I see _very_ little gain, but enough pain. I mean, it's not knew. We talked about that during c2k2. That is a year ago soon. If that idea had been so good we would have added it already, no? ;-) -- Henning Brauer, BS Web Services, http://bsws.de [EMAIL PROTECTED] - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unix is very simple, but it takes a genius to understand the simplicity. (Dennis Ritchie)