Zitiere Daniel Hartmeier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Mon, Sep 02, 2002 at 01:58:14PM +0200, Clemens Dumat wrote:
>
> > This is your proposal. Maybe this is the only one that would be
> > sensible to do, but nevertheless i though about different ways of doing
> > it
Hi Daniel,
thanks for your replies. With my newly gained knowledge about pf i tried to find
a workable solution for my problem using 3.1-stable but failed (i think it was
to be expected :).
So i thought about how it could be done expanding the current pf (as i
understand pf right now) and came u
Hi all,
i'm trying to apply route-to rules to packets that have a state (because they
were redirected or came in by a 'keep|modulate state'-rule), but to no avail.
I'm using 3.1-stable.
The situation is as follows: I have a router with 3 interfaces:
de0: external, static IP (e.g. 195.200.200.2
Zitiere Daniel Hartmeier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> rdr applying to outgoing connections has some ugly implications, apart
> from just adding more complexity and bloat.
I'm not enough into the architecture of pf to do intelligent suggestions about
what could/should be done to achive a certain goal.
(I sent this mail already 2 weeks ago, but it looks as if it was lost
in ADSL-Nirvana :) )
Zitiere Daniel Hartmeier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Mon, Sep 02, 2002 at 04:10:45PM +0200, Clemens Dumat wrote:
>
> > Great :) And as i said, i'm willing to help (if i can be of
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://www.iodamedia.net/pf.conf
Go grab it.. and tell me what I'm doing wrong!
-Shawn
Your ruleset is quite large to debug it just by looking at it.
But one error quickly sprang to my eyes: You're blocking the loopback
interface, which is certainly a bad idea.
C
Zitiere "Alexey E. Suslikov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> the default route is to if2. as you see, the point is
> to symmetrically route inbound dns traffic via if1.
>
> but strage things happens: i see incoming packet on if1,
> state creation, outgoing packet on if3, dns reply incoming
> on if3, and..
