(private) HKS escreveu:
>>> 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
>
>
>
from pf.conf man page:
default Packets not matched by another queue are assigned to this
one. Exactly one default queue is *required.*
--
Giancarlo Razzolini
http://lock.razzolini.adm.br
Linux User 172199
Red Hat Certified Engineer no:804006389722501
Verify:https://www.redhat.com/certification/rhce/current/
Moleque Sem Conteudo Numero #002
OpenBSD Stable
Ubuntu 8.04 Hardy Heron
4386 2A6F FFD4 4D5F 5842 6EA0 7ABE BBAB 9C0E 6B85
