On 1 September 2015 at 14:31, Alexandr Nedvedicky
wrote:
> Hello,
>
>
>> > As a side effect the patch breaks block rules with dup-to action. dup-to
>> > action as a part of block rule might make some sense... So if there is
>> > someone, who really needs block ... dup-to he should opt for equivale
> On 01 Sep 2015, at 14:31, Alexandr Nedvedicky
> wrote:
>
>>> As a side effect the patch breaks block rules with dup-to action. dup-to
>>> action as a part of block rule might make some sense... So if there is
>>> someone, who really needs block ... dup-to he should opt for equivalent
>>> rule
Hello,
> > As a side effect the patch breaks block rules with dup-to action. dup-to
> > action as a part of block rule might make some sense... So if there is
> > someone, who really needs block ... dup-to he should opt for equivalent
> > rule using pass ... route-to
> >
> > Also there is one m
> On 31 Aug 2015, at 22:57, Alexandr Nedvedicky
> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> Dilli Paudel in Oracle was playing with PF enough to find funny glitch.
> He used rule as follows:
>
> block in on vnic4 from 192.168.1.0/24 to any route-to 172.16.1.1@vnic5
>
> Many people expect the route-to acti
Hello,
Dilli Paudel in Oracle was playing with PF enough to find funny glitch.
He used rule as follows:
block in on vnic4 from 192.168.1.0/24 to any route-to 172.16.1.1@vnic5
Many people expect the route-to action is somewhat futile as 'block' action
takes precedence here, so packet gets