Re: Pf memory pool limits don't have immediate effects when loading a ruleset above the previous limit

. And on another machine with 6.6 i hit the same bug as below saying "Cannot allocate memory" and i'm not able to raise the limit if i don't remove the tables from my pf.conf Can anybody reproduce it? Thanks, Ben From: owner-m...@openbsd.org on behalf o

Pf memory pool limits don't have immediate effects when loading a ruleset above the previous limit

Hi misc, So I'm running 6.6 with latest syspatch as of today. I'm trying to load the default ruleset that comes with 6.6 with an extra file taht contains more than 1000 tables which is the default hard limit, my only change is to include that extra file. Since i've more than 1000 tables I

unexpected behavior with static route inserted

Hi, I have the following machine with two interfaces like this: root@fw:~ # cat /etc/hostname.vlan10 vlan 10 vlandev vio0 inet 10.0.0.1 255.255.255.0 NONE up root@fw:~ # cat /etc/hostname.vlan23 vlan 23 vlandev vio0 inet 172.30.133.83 255.255.255.240 NONE !route add 10.0.0.10/32 172.30.133.84

Re: Pf rdr-to and rdomain issue

ion, or is it the expected behavior? Thanks, Ben From: owner-m...@openbsd.org on behalf of Benjamin Girard Sent: 14 May 2019 19:46 To: Josh Grosse; misc@openbsd.org Subject: Re: Pf rdr-to and rdomain issue So we did manage to make it work by adding a pair in each rdom

Re: Pf rdr-to and rdomain issue

in pf? From: owner-m...@openbsd.org on behalf of Benjamin Girard Sent: 14 May 2019 18:02 To: Josh Grosse; misc@openbsd.org Subject: Re: Pf rdr-to and rdomain issue Can't we just use pf to move the traffic, rather than using pair

Re: Pf rdr-to and rdomain issue

Can't we just use pf to move the traffic, rather than using pair? From: Josh Grosse Sent: 14 May 2019 17:42 To: Benjamin Girard Subject: Re: Pf rdr-to and rdomain issue I think pair(4) may come to your rescue.

Pf rdr-to and rdomain issue

Hi, We would like to get a http request coming in on one rdomain moved to a host on another rdomain. How would we go about doing that? Can't seem to get it to work, the return traffic gets lost on rdomain 0 and is not moved back to rdomain 2. pass in on rdomain 2 proto tcp from any to

Re: mgre and bgpd

On 07/04/2018 11:53 AM, Sebastian Benoit wrote: Hi, is this on -current? Please provide a dmesg. Thanks for the reply, it's 6.3 not current. We couldn't see any mgre changes since the 6.3 release. But openbgpd has some changes that look unrelated to our problem as we understand it. Also:

Re: mgre and bgpd

After trying couple of things, we noticed that the bgp routes are missing from the kernel routing table as long as we have a route added toward the other end of the tunnel using the public ip of the tunnel as gateway ie: root@vpn1:~ # netstat -rn | grep                                      

mgre and bgpd

Hi, So we are currently trying to set up one mgre interface instead of multiple gre tunnel between two vpn machines and we are running against a problem with bgpd. we have two machines, vpn1 and vpn2, we have set up an mgre interface on both like this: root@vpn1:~ # ifconfig mgre0