On 04/23/2012 03:19:44 PM, Stuart Henderson wrote: > On 2012/04/23 11:49, Kyle Lanclos wrote: > > In order for our firewall to operate effectively, we use 'keep > state' > > pf rules.
> > pfsync(4)'s "defer" option might help. there is a penalty but it > might > be acceptable for your use case. I didn't notice _any_ reference to pfsync in the original post. Perhaps this is part of the problem? Karl <[email protected]> Free Software: "You don't pay back, you pay forward." -- Robert A. Heinlein
