2008/1/21, Jussi Peltola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> pf keeps state on UDP (and ICMP) just fine.
>
> --
> Jussi Peltola
>
>
Oh I see, that's very nice, thanks for all the help everyone!
--
Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments.
See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.ht
On Mon, Jan 21, 2008 at 12:38:36AM +1100, Sunnz wrote:
> 2008/1/21, Sunnz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > route-to
> > 2)
> > pass out on pppoe1 route-to (pppoe0 (pppoe0:0)) inet from pppoe0:0 to any
> >
> > 3)
> > pass out on pppoe1 route-to (pppoe0 (pppoe0:0)) inet from pppoe0:0 to any
> > pass out on p
On Mon, Jan 21, 2008 at 12:31:35AM +1100, Sunnz wrote:
> "Opposite direction is only defined in the context of a state entry,
> and reply-to is useful only in rules that create state." - as far as I
> know of, only TCP connections has states, but not UDP... so what I am
> worried about is that repl
Sunnz P=P0P?P8QP0:
2008/1/21, Sunnz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
route-to
2)
pass out on pppoe1 route-to (pppoe0 (pppoe0:0)) inet from pppoe0:0 to any
3)
pass out on pppoe1 route-to (pppoe0 (pppoe0:0)) inet from pppoe0:0 to any
pass out on pppoe0 route-to (pppoe1 (pppoe1:0)) inet from pppoe1:0 to a
On 2008/01/21 00:31, Sunnz wrote:
> So, do I need to use some kind of packet management with tag to get
> route-to to work? Or would using reply-to suffice?
Just use reply-to, that's what it's for.
> "Opposite direction is only defined in the context of a state entry,
> and reply-to is useful onl
On Mon, Jan 21, 2008 at 12:18:26AM +1100, Sunnz wrote:
> So, as per my understanding so far, packets are routed correctly from
> internet to pppoe0, but responses from pppoe0 are going through pppoe1
> which is wrong...
>
> So...
>
> 1) internet packets >>> pppoe0 got through correctly and worked
2008/1/21, Sunnz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> route-to
> 2)
> pass out on pppoe1 route-to (pppoe0 (pppoe0:0)) inet from pppoe0:0 to any
>
> 3)
> pass out on pppoe1 route-to (pppoe0 (pppoe0:0)) inet from pppoe0:0 to any
> pass out on pppoe0 route-to (pppoe1 (pppoe1:0)) inet from pppoe1:0 to any
>
> 4)
> p
2008/1/20, Jussi Peltola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Sun, Jan 20, 2008 at 07:13:02AM +0200, Jussi Peltola wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 20, 2008 at 03:48:16PM +1100, Sunnz wrote:
> >
> > > pass out on pppoe1 route-to (pppoe0 pppoe0:peer) \
> > > from any to pppoe0
> > I don't think that will work. A
So, as per my understanding so far, packets are routed correctly from
internet to pppoe0, but responses from pppoe0 are going through pppoe1
which is wrong...
So...
1) internet packets >>> pppoe0 got through correctly and worked.
2) pppoe0 response >>> pppoe1 wrong and dropped by the ISP.
And I
2008/1/20, Jussi Peltola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Sun, Jan 20, 2008 at 03:48:16PM +1100, Sunnz wrote:
>
> > pass out on pppoe1 route-to (pppoe0 pppoe0:peer) \
> > from any to pppoe0
> I don't think that will work. Anyone trying to reach pppoe0 will not get
> routed out on pppoe1.
>
> > pas
On Sun, Jan 20, 2008 at 07:13:02AM +0200, Jussi Peltola wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 20, 2008 at 03:48:16PM +1100, Sunnz wrote:
>
> > pass out on pppoe1 route-to (pppoe0 pppoe0:peer) \
> > from any to pppoe0
> I don't think that will work. Anyone trying to reach pppoe0 will not get
> routed out o
On Sun, Jan 20, 2008 at 03:48:16PM +1100, Sunnz wrote:
> pass out on pppoe1 route-to (pppoe0 pppoe0:peer) \
> from any to pppoe0
I don't think that will work. Anyone trying to reach pppoe0 will not get
routed out on pppoe1.
> pass in on pppoe1 route-to (pppoe0 pppoe0:peer) \
> f
2008/1/20, NetOne - Doichin Dokov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> You only have one defautl gateway, so the last pppoe session established
> sets it up to it's interface. The behaviour you're observing is
> absolutely normal. You should dig into pf's route-to, packet tagging and
> state-keeping options if y
Sunnz P=P0P?P8QP0:
Just wondering has anyone ever used 2 PPPoE(4) connections on one real
interface and rather if it should work or not?
I only have one account with my ISP but they gave me 2 logins and up 4
concurrent logins are allowed with their TOS.
My hardware ethernet gem(4) is connected
Just wondering has anyone ever used 2 PPPoE(4) connections on one real
interface and rather if it should work or not?
I only have one account with my ISP but they gave me 2 logins and up 4
concurrent logins are allowed with their TOS.
My hardware ethernet gem(4) is connected to a modem, with the
15 matches
Mail list logo
