On 2009-09-25, Vadim Zhukov <persg...@gmail.com> wrote: > 2. Is it OK if I'll hack it to make possible even crazy rule like this: > > pass in on $if1 from $a to $b rdr-to $c \ > route-to ($if3 $gt3) reply-to ($if2 $gt2) dup-to $if4 > > ... or it's not intended to be so, or it's in the work already? All I > want is redirecting traffic "smartly" between to uplinks in different > networks like: > > match in on lan to ! <all-locals> port domain \ > route-to ($fast_if $fast_gw) > pass in on lan to ! <all-locals>
I think both of those syntaxes should be expected to work. On 2009-09-25, Vadim Zhukov <persg...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 25 September 2009 11:49:48 Henning Brauer wrote: >> On 25 September 2009 08:34:03 Vadim Zhukov wrote: >> > So as far as I can understand, pf_rule.rdr pool is used for >> > route-to/reply-to/dup-to options. Now I have a few stupid questions: >> > >> > 1. Is it intended to have only one address pool for >> > rdr-to/route-to/reply-to/dup-to options in the rule? Or did I >> > misinterpreted something? >> >> this was intended but is a bit nasty so we'll go for a seperate pool >> for the route stuff (route-to/reply-to/dup-to) > > Thank you very much for your reply. Should I wait for this change to > happen at least until 4.7 branched, or go alone? Just do not want to do > unneeded work. It's definitely needed work, I've talked to a few people who rely on route-to/reply-to and can't upgrade some systems for now (or worse, already upgraded).
