Re: Rules must be in order

Hi, error says what sohuld you do: "/etc/pf.conf:13: Rules must be in order: options, normalization, queueing," Your pf rules order is wrong. The order should be like...Queue->NAT->Filtering... new pf.conf ; --- ext_if="lnc0" # replace with actual external interface name i.e., dc0 int_if="lnc

Rules must be in order

dear all i just configure pf+altq and got error masssage this my config ext_if="lnc0" # replace with actual external interface name i.e., dc0 int_if="lnc0" # replace with actual internal interface name i.e., dc1 internal_net1="10.10.1.1/24" internal_net2="10.10.2.1/24" altq on lnc0 cbq ban

Re: rate limit with pf instead of IPFW

On 12/30/06, Peter N. M. Hansteen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: "Abdullah Al-Marrie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I checked http://home.nuug.no/~peter/pf/en/bruteforce.html > > I still didn't find something in the faq covers table > persist , do I need to create a file like /etc/bruteforce or no

Re: rate limit with pf instead of IPFW

"Abdullah Al-Marrie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I checked http://home.nuug.no/~peter/pf/en/bruteforce.html > > I still didn't find something in the faq covers table > persist , do I need to create a file like /etc/bruteforce or no need > for that and will be stored in kernel until they expire

Re: cleanup_pf_zone()

On Saturday 30 December 2006 06:22, Earl Lapus wrote: > Some additional info... > > The undestroyed strucure, pfr_kentry_pl2, seems to be the reason why So you are saying that you added the UMA_DESTORY for pfr_kentry_pl2 and the panic went away? > my box crashed when I did the following: > > 1)