>> imho normally this packet wouldn't be queued because the last count >> matches the packet so the last rule applies:
This is what I assumed at first, but the stickiness of tags and the (seeming) logic of doing the same with queues made me second-guess myself. > on the other hand: > > "During the filtering component of pf.conf, the last referenced > queue name is where any packets from pass rules will be queued..." > > that means because of the sequential order that the packet should be > queued imho. Is that the case, or does that mean that packets passed by a statement on an altq-enabled interface without an explicit "queue <name>" directive are automatically assigned to the last defined queue? My initial tests suggest that the queue statements are not sticky (ie, my initial rules would not have queued it in the "tens" queue), but I'm still not sure. -HKS
