Hey Sylvester:
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Sylwester S. Biernacki
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 2:21 PM
To: pf@benzedrine.cx
Subject: Re: PF - Removing Server from Pool when Service is Down
On Tuesday, December 12, 2006, at
OpenBSD has ifstated, which is pretty simple to configure
state engine.
Karl [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Free Software: You don't pay back, you pay forward.
-- Robert A. Heinlein
On Wednesday, December 13, 2006, at 15:59:02, Karl O. Pinc wrote:
OpenBSD has ifstated, which is pretty simple to configure
state engine.
it's true, but it's unusable here - if machine get 100% cpu load it
won't put down their interface. Also if you use load balancer almost
everytime you have
Hi all
How can I translate this ipfw rule
ipfw add permit from any to any establisd
into pf rule ?
Regards.
--
Albert SHIH
Universite de Paris 7 (Denis DIDEROT)
U.F.R. de Mathematiques.
7 ième étage, plateau D, bureau 10
Heure local/Local time:
Wed Dec 13 15:43:05 CET 2006
On 12/13/2006 09:40:03 AM, Sylwester S. Biernacki wrote:
On Wednesday, December 13, 2006, at 15:59:02, Karl O. Pinc wrote:
OpenBSD has ifstated, which is pretty simple to configure
state engine.
it's true, but it's unusable here - if machine get 100% cpu load it
won't put down their
On Wednesday, December 13, 2006, at 09:20:11, pf@benzedrine.cx wrote:
I think that's the route we're going to take. I'm thinking about
writing a listener on all of the servers in the pool that report to a
server on the pf-enabled load balancers. The server would then
add/remove devices from
Hi all
I've very strange problem
I've FreeBSD box running pf with 3 NIC, one on each different subnet (all
public), I'm using ipfw for making a router. I want use pf now
I've using keep state option of all my rules but it's seem not working.
With keep state option I've got a dynamic rule on
On Mon, Dec 04, 2006 at 02:02:38PM +0100, Axel Rau wrote:
If flags S/SA would just be ignored by none-tcp packets, I would be
happy.
Be happy, it is. ;)
But the man page says:
This rule only applies to TCP packets that have the flags a set
out of set b.
This means to
On Wed, Dec 13, 2006 at 05:52:03PM +0100, Albert Shih wrote:
It's a problem with FreeBSD or it's with pf ?
With neither, you're assuming a state entry has the same effect in pf as
in ipfw, which is not the case.
For example I've put this kind of rule
pass in on $first-nic proto tcp
On 2006/12/13 15:44, Albert Shih wrote:
How can I translate this ipfw rule
ipfw add permit from any to any establisd
into pf rule ?
Assuming the established session setup was allowed by a 'keep state'
rule, you don't do anything, it's done by default.
With keep state option I've got a
On Wednesday, December 13, 2006, at 17:14:39, Karl O. Pinc wrote:
On 12/13/2006 09:40:03 AM, Sylwester S. Biernacki wrote:
On Wednesday, December 13, 2006, at 15:59:02, Karl O. Pinc wrote:
OpenBSD has ifstated, which is pretty simple to configure
state engine.
it's true, but it's
On Wed, 13 Dec 2006, Sylwester S. Biernacki wrote:
On Wednesday, December 13, 2006, at 15:59:02, Karl O. Pinc wrote:
OpenBSD has ifstated, which is pretty simple to configure
state engine.
it's true, but it's unusable here - if machine get 100% cpu load it
won't put down their interface.
12 matches
Mail list logo
