Hello, Seeing that nobody is answering to the question below I'd add: Is there anybody who uses authpf in the same scenario? Does it behave like in my case? Any suggestion to keep the states for the user after he/she closes the session?
Thank you. On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 1:46 PM, Derek <derekmail...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi list, > > I'm using authpf to allow external users to access to certain restricted > services within our network. This network hosts public services as well, > this is services which are open to all internet. > > The thing is that after some tests I realized that a client who has an > authpf session opened and uses both, the autpf-protected service and the > public service, gets disconnected of all services when he/she closes the > authpf session. > > Looking a little bit closer I can see that all the states created by an IP > address are removed when the user from that IP closes the authpf session so > the states created by the authpf rules but also the ones created by the > "regular" pf.conf rules disappear from the table. > > I guess that this is because there is only one states table and it could be > difficult to know which states are genereated by which rules. > > The question is, is there any plan to label or mark the states so will be > possible in the future for the non-authpf states to survive the authpf > session? > > Thank you all. > > Derek.
