Jason, I think you missed the "OT" part of my post. I was just asking
the status of it, not saying it was or wasn't needed. From your post, I
take it there are no plans whatsoever to include it, and indirect
answer, but I got the answer.
-Original Message-
From: Jason Dixon [mailto:[EMAIL
On Mar 8, 2005, at 9:40 AM, Amir S Mesry wrote:
Jason, I think you missed the "OT" part of my post. I was just asking
the status of it, not saying it was or wasn't needed. From your post, I
take it there are no plans whatsoever to include it, and indirect
answer, but I got the answer.
You didn't ca
On Tue, 2005-03-08 at 02:01:43 -0600, Kevin proclaimed...
> IIRC, this is exactly what 'dup-to' is designed for.
> It is important to note that dup-to works *exactly* like route-to, which means
> that the *ether* frame (assuming the dup-to destination is a hop via Ethernet)
> will be recreated (
On Mon, 7 Mar 2005 22:07:52 +0100, Daniel Hartmeier
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> No, pf route-to always overrides the routing table. You can use route-to
> on a 'pass in' rule. In this case, pf alone routes the packet, and the
> routing table is completely bypassed (never consulted). Or you can
On Tue, 1 Mar 2005 16:59:53 -0600, eric <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-03-02 at 11:22:15 +1300, Russell Fulton proclaimed...
> > I want to monitor the output from pflog in more or less real time. It
> > isn't clear to me what is the best (read simplest ;) way to do this.
> > What
