Chad Gross([email protected]) on 2020.01.29 16:22:52 -0700: > It isn't explicitly expressed in the man page that pfsync requires > identical interfaces to work properly so I've created a patch > clarifying that it won't work otherwise. A workaround is possible with > the use of trunk(4), or now possibly aggr(4), but I wasn't sure this > additional information was warranted in the man page.
I dont think this is correct. How do you come to this conclusion? If possible provide an example that shows what is not working. If you do not have identical rulesets, the transfered states will have the "rule number" reference removed, so you wont know what rule created a state anymore if you look at the receiving system only, but the state will work just fine. Possible exceptions i can think of are if-bound states. /Benno
