On Sun, Aug 14, 2005 at 10:13:33PM +0200, Erik Wikstr?m wrote: > On 2005-08-14 19:17, stan wrote: > >On Sun, Aug 14, 2005 at 12:24:43PM -0400, stan wrote: > >>I've got 2 rules like this: > >> > >>pass out on $int_if from any to any keep state > >>pass in on $int_if from any to any keep state > >> > >>That I think I should be able to replace with: > >> > >>pass out on $int_if from any to any keep state > >>pass in on $int_if from any to any keep state > >> > >>But when I do this, I get the follwing packets droped. > >> > >>Aug 14 12:08:05.230735 rule 0/(match) block out on fxp2: > >>171.85.113.55.2318 > > >>171.85.106.133.161: GetRequest(5)[|snmp] > >> > >>requiste defs are: > >> > >>int_if="fxp2" > >> > >>and the /etc/hostname.fxpo looks like this: > >> > >>inet 171.85.113.111 255.255.255.128 NONE > > > >pass in on $int_if from $int_if:network to any keep state > >pass out on $int_if from any to $int_if:network keep state > > As we all know I'm no expert :-) but it seems to me as if the blocked > packet was heading to 171.85.106.133 on port 161. However since you have > the address 71.85.113.111 with netmask 255.255.255.128 on int_if the > package is dropped since it's not on the same subnet as int_if. Simply > put the rules works, but perhaps you have the wrong netmask?
Sometimes, it just needs someone else to look at it. Indeed as you surmised, it's a typo in hostname.fxp0, now since there is alos a carp device on this interface, and this machine is the primary, then things were working anyway! Thanks very much. -- U.S. Encouraged by Vietnam Vote - Officials Cite 83% Turnout Despite Vietcong Terror - New York Times 9/3/1967
