On Tue, 2005-10-04 at 18:50:16 +0100, ed proclaimed...
> Humm as far as I know a router does not have a state table as such, it
> merely routes, as opposed to NAT. With NAT the FW indexes the source
> port+address with a destination port+address, which yields a state. When
> the FW sees another pa
On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 17:02:08 -0500
"Neil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So are you saying that failover will still work on a route setup?
Can't see why not. The failover is concerned with the gateway and
external IP addresses so that your routed and external networks talk to
the CARP interfaces a
So are you saying that failover will still work on a route setup?
ed writes:
On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 23:19:30 -0500
"Neil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hey guys,
What will I change in pf.conf if I'm not going to use NAT anymore?
It's because, the current setup of the servers including the fir
On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 23:19:30 -0500
"Neil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hey guys,
>
> What will I change in pf.conf if I'm not going to use NAT anymore?
> It's because, the current setup of the servers including the firewall
> uses publicly routable addresses and there is no NAT. I still wanted
On Sat, Oct 01, 2005 at 06:53:12PM -0400, Matt Van Mater wrote:
> I have a similar setup to what Daniel specifies in
> http://www.benzedrine.cx/ackpri.html but have a nagging question that
> I haven't been able to find an answer for.
>
> Why do you need to specify bandwidth on the parent queue in
Hey guys,
What will I change in pf.conf if I'm not going to use NAT anymore? It's
because, the current setup of the servers including the firewall uses
publicly routable addresses and there is no NAT. I still wanted to have
failover that maintains existing states/connections even if one firewa
