Slicing and dicing to get context:
On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 12:26, mikel wrote:
> I think that contrackd doenst does this
>
> On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 13:13:00 -0600, Bill Marquette
> wrote:
>> All 255 protocols. If it's in state, it's sync'd.
At the expense of addressing a fallacy on the wrong lis
Yeah!!
This is a very good reason!!
I think that contrackd doenst does this
On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 13:13:00 -0600, Bill Marquette
wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 12:26 PM, mikel wrote:
>>
>> I ask this question, because I am favour ogf *BSD, and one friend
> discuss
>> me that
On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 12:26 PM, mikel wrote:
>
> I ask this question, because I am favour ogf *BSD, and one friend discuss
> me that what pfsync+carp does, is possible with contrackd.
>
> I have read that contrackd only syncs tcp states, and is a user space
> daemon, not kernel level.
>
> My que
On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 1:26 PM, mikel wrote:
>
> I ask this question, because I am favour ogf *BSD, and one friend discuss
> me that what pfsync+carp does, is possible with contrackd.
>
> I have read that contrackd only syncs tcp states, and is a user space
> daemon, not kernel level.
>
> My ques
I ask this question, because I am favour ogf *BSD, and one friend discuss
me that what pfsync+carp does, is possible with contrackd.
I have read that contrackd only syncs tcp states, and is a user space
daemon, not kernel level.
My question is, it can do all that pfsync?
If yo dont know
agree, this is not a linux mailing list.
however, linux users might find the following script useful:
http://www.zaurus.org.uk/download/scripts/nf_conntrack
it gives you a useful overview of the (nat) states. I wrote it when I
couldn't find anything similar and was trying to work out how a
parti
On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 09:06, Chris Buechler wrote:
> For one, you're not likely to find any Linux users here, at least not any
> that are intimately familiar with Linux firewalls.
Preferring to hand-roll my own rule sets and knowing the iptables
packet stack nearly by heart, I'd say I am famili
On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 9:44 AM, Mikel Jimenez wrote:
> More tecnically reason?
>
> Referring to states, tracking, tcp/udp...
There's a reason you aren't getting the responses you want on the
OpenBSD list where you asked the exact same question and here. For
one, you're not likely to find any Lin
More tecnically reason?
Referring to states, tracking, tcp/udp...
Bill Marquette wrote:
Go troll elsewhere.
On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 5:51 AM, Mikel Jimenez wrote:
Hello
Is pfsync better than contrackd?
Who cares, pfsense runs on FreeBSD where there be demons, not penguins.
In w
Go troll elsewhere.
On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 5:51 AM, Mikel Jimenez wrote:
> Hello
>
> Is pfsync better than contrackd?
Who cares, pfsense runs on FreeBSD where there be demons, not penguins.
> In what aspects?
It runs on *BSD, not linux, so yes, infinitely better.
--Bill
Hello
Is pfsync better than contrackd?
In what aspects?
--
Mikel Jimenez Fernandez
Irontec, Internet y Sistemas sobre GNU/LinuX - http://www.irontec.com
+34 94.404.81.82
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: support-unsubscr...@pfsense.
11 matches
Mail list logo
