Em 02-12-2015 07:56, Sarevok Anchev escreveu:
> .. but I don't think it's relevant as I've tried to run the test between
> pf.conf and the base anchor, and still macros defined in pf.conf are not
> available from /etc/pf/anchors/base.
>
> Is this intended behaviour?
Macros need to be present in
On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 01:37:52PM -0200, Giancarlo Razzolini wrote:
> Macros need to be present in each anchor file. Tables don't need to. I
> have a little script that copies all my macros after I edit /etc/pf.conf
> to the anchors. I use commented marks on /etc/pf.con to know where to
> begin
I'm puzzled by the following. According to the documentation it should work?
The example at http://www.openbsd.org/faq/pf/anchors.html indeed works,
but that's an inline anchor.
Here's the problem: I would like to define a macro in an anchor, and use
that macro in other anchors below it -- like
You can search for a thread on this list with the subject how to
manage big pf-rulesets in a comfortable way - someone posted their
makefile for adding a macro set to the start of pf rulesets.
Hi all,
I'm updating my PF rules to include an anchor for my manual routing rules (using
route-to) which can then be updated by ifstated when it notices that one of my
links has fallen over.
As the documentation says, macros are not visible in anchors. Which means that
my (growing and rather
5 matches
Mail list logo
