Re: NAT replies not triggering pf rule

2015-10-27 Thread Stuart Henderson
On 2015-10-27, Michael S. Keller wrote: > On 10/27/15 3:42 AM, Stuart Henderson wrote: >> On 2015-10-26, Giancarlo Razzolini wrote: >>> I suggest you move your match rules to the beginning of the ruleset and >>> use log on them. So you can watch your pflog interface and see the >>> packets being

Re: NAT replies not triggering pf rule

2015-10-27 Thread Giancarlo Razzolini
Em 27-10-2015 09:37, Michael S. Keller escreveu: > These are the rules that appear potentially to affect outgoing packets > on the internal interface: > > match inet from any to 192.168.1.62 > block drop out on gem0 all > pass out on gem0 inet from any to 192.168.1.0/24 flags S/SA > > Only traffic

Re: NAT replies not triggering pf rule

2015-10-27 Thread Michael S. Keller
On 10/27/15 3:42 AM, Stuart Henderson wrote: On 2015-10-26, Giancarlo Razzolini wrote: I suggest you move your match rules to the beginning of the ruleset and use log on them. So you can watch your pflog interface and see the packets being triggered. Also, you can (should) always use tags. Not

Re: NAT replies not triggering pf rule

2015-10-27 Thread Stuart Henderson
On 2015-10-26, Giancarlo Razzolini wrote: > I suggest you move your match rules to the beginning of the ruleset and > use log on them. So you can watch your pflog interface and see the > packets being triggered. Also, you can (should) always use tags. Not > only they make your ruleset "debugable",

Re: NAT replies not triggering pf rule

2015-10-26 Thread Michael S. Keller
Because there will never be a packet on gem0 with destination 192.168.1.64. The packets are being natted, aren't they? Try using tags, your life will be much simpler. I tried tags in an earlier iteration of this. Didn't help. As a simpler test, I revised the rule for packets leaving gem0 to thi

Re: NAT replies not triggering pf rule

2015-10-26 Thread Michael S. Keller
On 10/26/15 8:12 AM, Giancarlo Razzolini wrote: Are you aware that you'll need to have a queue on the internal interface and another on the egress one right? Queuing incoming packets is very tricky and not always have the desired effect. I suggest you start with prio and see where it leads you:

Re: NAT replies not triggering pf rule

2015-10-26 Thread Giancarlo Razzolini
Em 25-10-2015 15:31, Michael S. Keller escreveu: > I want to set queues to limit bandwidth for the streaming media > devices on my home network. Unfortunately, the "pass out" rules on my > internal network (external is PPPoE) don't ever trip for replies > received from the world. Are you aware tha

NAT replies not triggering pf rule

2015-10-25 Thread Michael S. Keller
I've worked with this off and on for some time, but still don't know what I'm not doing correctly. I want to set queues to limit bandwidth for the streaming media devices on my home network. Unfortunately, the "pass out" rules on my internal network (external is PPPoE) don't ever trip for repl