Hi,
Does the tcp.closed timeout value (default 90 secs)
apply to connections that saw a RST packet too?
If so, why don't we remove such RST connections
immediately?
Regards,
Alberto Alesina
__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the bes
The following reply was made to PR kern/94877; it has been noted by GNATS.
From: Max Laier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc:
Subject: Re: kern/94877: [pf] packet filter blocks outgoing traffic after boot
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 06:27:37 +0100
If you want pf to tr
Synopsis: [pf] packet filter blocks outgoing traffic after boot
Responsible-Changed-From-To: freebsd-bugs->freebsd-pf
Responsible-Changed-By: linimon
Responsible-Changed-When: Fri Mar 24 04:32:10 UTC 2006
Responsible-Changed-Why:
Over to maintainer(s).
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=
On 3/23/06, Daniel Hartmeier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If it were an mbuf leak, it wouldn't go away right after you run pfctl
> -d, as disabling pf will not cause any memory to get released at all.
>
> You might simply be hitting the (default) 10,000 state entry limit,
> check pfctl -si output.
On Wed, Mar 22, 2006 at 04:03:16PM +0100, Volker wrote:
> It smells like a memory leak isn't it?
If it were an mbuf leak, it wouldn't go away right after you run pfctl
-d, as disabling pf will not cause any memory to get released at all.
You might simply be hitting the (default) 10,000 state ent
On 3/22/06, Volker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How do I check (debug) if this is a base system (networking) problem
> of 6.1-BETA or if it's a pf bug?
I have the same issues on OpenBSD, and came to the same conclusion;
notably, that it's a leak of mbufs. It only occurs for me with rdr
rules enab
