> 1) Looking at tcpdumps, I've noticed (on 6.5 have no prior experience
> with nat-to random to compare against) that 'random' seems to operate
> more like 'round-robin'
I can't speak to the rest of your questions. But I can share something
about a very similar issue. A few releases ago I ran into
On Fri, 6/17/16, Marko Cupać wrote:
> Perhaps it would be useful to add that 'set prio' does nothing
> unless "hardware is slower at transmitting packets than the
> thing that generates these packets to send", as stated here:
>
> [http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=145257356119612&w=2]
>
>
Hi,
I'm trying to update my pf.conf to prioritize Ooma VoIP packets. My OpenBSD
firewall sits between my Ooma on my internal network and the outside world.
It's hard to Google for this info, since the pf FAQ has so many mirrors out
there, it's hard to separate the noise from the signal. I own T
--- On Mon, 1/28/13, Andres Perera wrote:
> more than that, really, why should you or anybody care
>
> using bpf or not should be an implementation detail. no one should
> be making decisions as far as their pf config goes based upon
> whether dhclient uses bpf or not
Thanks for your comments
Hi guys,
For many years, I've read pf and dhcp related threads like, e.g.:
http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=125907434809727&w=2
Some text from that post:
"dhcp packets are grabbed by dhclient or dhcpd before pf sees them."
My understanding, based on comments in a number of threads like that,
i
> The server openbsd.org is actually cvs.openbsd.org,
> that is the main machine in Theo's basement.
> Nobody should ever use that one for anything.
For many many years I've been typing
example.com
without leading www. Back in the 1990s nytimes.com didn't work, and
www.nytimes.com did. But s
> Not true. fsck will only do a parallel check
> the partitions are on a separate device.
That makes sense. You would have a lot of disk thrashing if you tried to check
two partitions in parallel on the same drive.
> The 1.5 TB hard drive is partitioned in three equal partition
> so I have a chance to pass the fsck if ever needed.
You may still have difficulty passing fsck.
By default OpenBSD will attempt to fsck all three partitions in parallel. See
this thread from last month where I mentioned a change t
--- On Wed, 1/6/10, Alexander Hall wrote:
> You should be able to get the same result
> using proper values for fs_passno in /etc/fstab.
One would hope so, but I don't think that's the case.
First, the man page says
the root filesystem should be specified with
a fs_passno of 1, and other
Sorry I'm not subscribed to the misc@ list, I read on a web archive. So I can't
reply directly to the recent discussion about how to do newfs / fsck etc on
large file systems (memory issue).
I have one box with relatively limited memory and had to make a change directly
to /etc/rc (yes, horrors
I'm running OpenBSD 4.1 release.
Does anyone have a "definitive" explanation of the difference between pf
state being floating vs if-bound, and when one or the other should /
must be used?
The rest of this email is just explaining why I'm asking the question.
I've seen Henning Brauer say use
Die Gestalt wrote:
Do you have pf enabled and if yes can you share with us your pf.conf?
It sounds like you nat everything including one of your incoming
connection. When the request arrives on one interface it gets natted
to the other.
My pf.conf is quite cluttered. So thanks for the first h
I'm running OpenBSD 4.1 release.
I've had a DSL connection, just added a cable modem. DSL has static IP,
cable modem IP assigned by DHCP (which becomes default route).
Now, when I receive ICMP echo request on DSL the ICMP echo reply goes
back via cable modem (and has cable modem source addres
Marcos Laufer wrote:
Hello,
I am testing pf in an OpenBSD 4.1. This same configuration works fine on
OpenBSD 3.9, but in 4.1 it is not filtering anything, everything is passing
thru,
just like as if there was no 'block all'. What worries me most is that
anyone
on the outside can see my ssh serv
14 matches
Mail list logo
