Re: counting dropped packets for pf

> ... better badly does work ... If it so, then it should not be done from the start. A bad implementation can trigger other problems. Try to think a little bit. ( hint: Chernobyl)

Re: counting dropped packets for pf

> On Fri, Mar 30, 2018 at 9:58 AM, 3 wrote: >> perhaps my poor english prevented you from understanding the question > perhaps >> my initial approach does work. u are have comments about route-to? > If people do not understand the words you use to represent the ideas > you

Re: counting dropped packets for pf

On Fri, Mar 30, 2018 at 10:35 AM, 3 wrote: > i showed my idea on the example of pf's config- this language should > be familiar to you ... > no more effective ways. the variant with pfctl is a kolhoz-style(ugly > and ineffective), it requires a lot of work to convert data into >

Re: counting dropped packets for pf

On Fri, Mar 30, 2018 at 9:58 AM, 3 wrote: > perhaps my poor english prevented you from understanding the question perhaps > my initial approach does work. u are have comments about route-to? If people do not understand the words you use to represent the ideas you were

Re: counting dropped packets for pf

> On 03/30/18 13:32, 3 wrote: >> people like you do not understand what better badly does work than >> well not works. and it is not our(not ordinary users) fault that the > Seriously, cipher, you're just spewing word salad again. > And it sounds vaguely like abuse, aimed at people who were in

Re: counting dropped packets for pf

On 03/30/18 13:32, 3 wrote: > people like you do not understand what better badly does work than > well not works. and it is not our(not ordinary users) fault that the Seriously, cipher, you're just spewing word salad again. And it sounds vaguely like abuse, aimed at people who were in fact

Re: counting dropped packets for pf

>> You would need a 1/4" wrench and a screwdriver tip that fits an impact >> driver. > I want to see you using your method for a deep sunken screw inside a > cylindrical channel of a case. > You can give a chance to the other guy, too. > People like you do not understand concepts like evolution,

Re: counting dropped packets for pf

On Mar 30, 2018 4:08 AM, Mihai Popescu wrote: > > > You would need a 1/4" wrench and a screwdriver tip that fits an impact > > driver. > > I want to see you using your method for a deep sunken screw inside a > cylindrical channel of a case. > You can give a chance to the other

Re: counting dropped packets for pf

> You would need a 1/4" wrench and a screwdriver tip that fits an impact driver. I want to see you using your method for a deep sunken screw inside a cylindrical channel of a case. You can give a chance to the other guy, too. People like you do not understand concepts like evolution, smart tools,

Re: counting dropped packets for pf

> man pf.conf is your friend, please consult there before letting > resentment stew for years next time, huh? why are you silent? do you have the courage to admit that the famous russian comedian zadornov was right when said "ну тупые!"? ;)

Re: counting dropped packets for pf

> On 03/28/18 22:03, 3 wrote: >> maybe im so dumb and blind to see pflow here.. and maybe deal not in >> me. where is pflow? > pflow gets the data it exports from the state table. > Blocked connections do not create state table entries. > This means that pflow does not have the information

Re: counting dropped packets for pf

Вы писали 29 марта 2018 г., 16:35:45: > On Wed, Mar 28, 2018, at 7:10 PM, 3 wrote: >> > 3(ba...@yandex.ru) on 2018.03.28 23:03:27 +0300: >> >> > On 03/28/18 15:04, 3 wrote: >> >> >> hi guys. when the pflow option first appeared, i was surprised by the >> >> >> stupidity of those who implemented

Re: counting dropped packets for pf

On Mar 29, 2018 8:35 AM, Eric Furman wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 28, 2018, at 7:10 PM, 3 wrote: > > > 3(ba...@yandex.ru) on 2018.03.28 23:03:27 +0300: > > >> > On 03/28/18 15:04, 3 wrote: > > >> >> hi guys. when the pflow option first appeared, i was surprised by the > > >>

Re: counting dropped packets for pf

On Wed, Mar 28, 2018, at 7:10 PM, 3 wrote: > > 3(ba...@yandex.ru) on 2018.03.28 23:03:27 +0300: > >> > On 03/28/18 15:04, 3 wrote: > >> >> hi guys. when the pflow option first appeared, i was surprised by the > >> >> stupidity of those who implemented it- pflow could not be specified > >> >> for

Re: counting dropped packets for pf

On 03/28/18 22:03, 3 wrote: > maybe im so dumb and blind to see pflow here.. and maybe deal not in > me. where is pflow? pflow gets the data it exports from the state table. Blocked connections do not create state table entries. This means that pflow does not have the information you're

Re: counting dropped packets for pf

On 2018-03-28, 3 wrote: > hi guys. when the pflow option first appeared, i was surprised by the > stupidity of those who implemented it- pflow could not be specified > for block-rules, i.e. dropped packets were not taken into account. as > a result of this approach, the

Re: counting dropped packets for pf

3(ba...@yandex.ru) on 2018.03.29 02:10:29 +0300: > > 3(ba...@yandex.ru) on 2018.03.28 23:03:27 +0300: > >> > On 03/28/18 15:04, 3 wrote: > >> >> hi guys. when the pflow option first appeared, i was surprised by the > >> >> stupidity of those who implemented it- pflow could not be specified > >> >>

Re: counting dropped packets for pf

> 3(ba...@yandex.ru) on 2018.03.28 23:03:27 +0300: >> > On 03/28/18 15:04, 3 wrote: >> >> hi guys. when the pflow option first appeared, i was surprised by the >> >> stupidity of those who implemented it- pflow could not be specified >> >> for block-rules, i.e. dropped packets were not taken into

Re: counting dropped packets for pf

3(ba...@yandex.ru) on 2018.03.28 23:03:27 +0300: > > On 03/28/18 15:04, 3 wrote: > >> hi guys. when the pflow option first appeared, i was surprised by the > >> stupidity of those who implemented it- pflow could not be specified > >> for block-rules, i.e. dropped packets were not taken into

Re: counting dropped packets for pf

> https://man.openbsd.org/pflow.4 > On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 4:03 PM, 3 wrote: >> On 03/28/18 15:04, 3 wrote: >>> hi guys. when the pflow option first appeared, i was surprised by the >>> stupidity of those who implemented it- pflow could not be specified >>> for block-rules,

Re: counting dropped packets for pf

https://man.openbsd.org/pflow.4 On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 4:03 PM, 3 wrote: > > On 03/28/18 15:04, 3 wrote: > >> hi guys. when the pflow option first appeared, i was surprised by the > >> stupidity of those who implemented it- pflow could not be specified > >> for block-rules,

Re: counting dropped packets for pf

> On 03/28/18 15:04, 3 wrote: >> hi guys. when the pflow option first appeared, i was surprised by the >> stupidity of those who implemented it- pflow could not be specified >> for block-rules, i.e. dropped packets were not taken into account. as > hm. you've suffered nine years of this stupidity

Re: counting dropped packets for pf

On 03/28/18 15:04, 3 wrote: > hi guys. when the pflow option first appeared, i was surprised by the > stupidity of those who implemented it- pflow could not be specified > for block-rules, i.e. dropped packets were not taken into account. as hm. you've suffered nine years of this stupidity of

counting dropped packets for pf

hi guys. when the pflow option first appeared, i was surprised by the stupidity of those who implemented it- pflow could not be specified for block-rules, i.e. dropped packets were not taken into account. as a result of this approach, the usefulness of pflow sought to zero for those cases where