Hi,
I have e few questions regarding the PF FAQ, PF: Address Pools and
Load Balancing.
-- In the "load balance outgoing traffic" example, there is:
# route packets from any IPs on $ext_if1 to $ext_gw1 and the same for
# $ext_if2 and $ext_gw2
pass out on $ext_if1 route-to ($ext_if2 $ext_gw2) from $ext_if2 to any
pass out on $ext_if2 route-to ($ext_if1 $ext_gw1) from $ext_if1 to any
I think it should be:
# route packets from any IPs on $ext_if1 to $ext_gw1 and the same for
# $ext_if2 and $ext_gw2
pass out on $ext_if1 route-to ($ext_if1 $ext_gw1) from $ext_if2 to any
pass out on $ext_if2 route-to ($ext_if2 $ext_gw2) from $ext_if2 to any
-- The default deny is to block anything. But on $int_if the rules are:
# pass all outgoing packets on internal interface
pass out on $int_if from any to $lan_net
# pass in quick any packets destined for the gateway itself
pass in quick on $int_if from $lan_net to $int_if
But how the traffic on $int_if can "pass out" correctly without the
keep state keyword? Does the first rule only there to permit the reply
initiated by packets authorized by the second rule? Is it reducing the
state table?
-- For the rules :
pass in on $int_if route-to \
{ ($ext_if1 $ext_gw1), ($ext_if2 $ext_gw2) } round-robin \
proto tcp from $lan_net to any flags S/SA modulate state
# load balance outgoing udp and icmp traffic from internal network
pass in on $int_if route-to \
{ ($ext_if1 $ext_gw1), ($ext_if2 $ext_gw2) } round-robin \
proto { udp, icmp } from $lan_net to any keep state
# general "pass out" rules for external interfaces
pass out on $ext_if1 proto tcp from any to any flags S/SA modulate state
pass out on $ext_if1 proto { udp, icmp } from any to any keep state
pass out on $ext_if2 proto tcp from any to any flags S/SA modulate state
pass out on $ext_if2 proto { udp, icmp } from any to any keep state
Why the last four rules are written with the 'modulate state' keyword,
since the upper rules have this?
Thank you.
Cheers,
Cidric Brisseau
