The following reply was made to PR kern/173659; it has been noted by GNATS.
From: Gleb Smirnoff
To: bug-follo...@freebsd.org
Cc:
Subject: Re: kern/173659: PF fatal trap on 9.1 (taskq fatal trap on
pf_test_rule)
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2012 14:13:23 +0400
Since Patricks mail server bounces my mai
Note: to view an individual PR, use:
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=(number).
The following is a listing of current problems submitted by FreeBSD users.
These represent problem reports covering all versions including
experimental development code and obsolete releases.
S Tracker
Thanks for your reply. I've tried the configuration you suggested but
it's providing the same issue I was encountering before.
My goal is to route all traffic from the tunnel out the external
interface nat'ing it on the way out. Any traffic coming in on the
external interface should be un-nat'd (i
On Nov 19, 2012 3:12 PM, "Peter McAlpine" wrote:
>
> Thanks for your reply. I've tried the configuration you suggested but
> it's providing the same issue I was encountering before.
>
> My goal is to route all traffic from the tunnel out the external
> interface nat'ing it on the way out. Any traf
On Nov 19, 2012 5:54 PM, "Kevin Wilcox" wrote:
> It is. The "pass in" rule I used in my example assumes the inside
interface and the other devices it talks to are in the same network.
Correction, the "pass in" and "nat" rules, not just the pass. They both
have to be modified.
kmw
__
Kevin Wilcox wrote:
>
> On Nov 19, 2012 5:54 PM, "Kevin Wilcox" wrote:
>
> > It is. The "pass in" rule I used in my example assumes the inside
> > interface and the other devices it talks to are in the same network.
>
> Correction, the "pass in" and "nat" rules, not just the pass. They
> both ha
On 19 November 2012 18:56, David DeSimone wrote:
> This doesn't seem right, because even traffic coming in via the external
> interface will have its target IP changed to be the router, even if
> it is destined for some other place. Previously you were using "from
> $int_if:network" to prevent t
Good day all,
I am aware this is a much discussed subject since the upgrade of PF, I
believe the final decision was that to many users are used to the old
style pf and an upgrade to the new syntax would cause to much confusion.
There was a recent debate on ##freebsd about this issue and I was in
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 9:23 PM, Paul Webster
wrote:
> Good day all,
>
> I am aware this is a much discussed subject since the upgrade of PF, I
> believe the final decision was that to many users are used to the old
> style pf and an upgrade to the new syntax would cause to much confusion.
>
> The
I am not so sure there would be much more maintenance, after all after the
split the only updates to the original 'pf-*' tree would be any serious
security or stability updates that happen to crop up.
All feature updates etc would be to the pf2-*
On Tue, 20 Nov 2012 02:52:53 -, Maxim Khi
Just out of interest, option 3) does not entirely dismiss using the pf2-*
chain of kernel options for developing using the new pf tree; sure it
would be alot of work but just 'how much' would be required; Our own fork
after all means that everything is created from scratch and as its 'vastly
On 2012-Nov-20 02:23:07 -, Paul Webster
wrote:
>I am aware this is a much discussed subject since the upgrade of PF, I
>believe the final decision was that to many users are used to the old
>style pf and an upgrade to the new syntax would cause to much confusion.
FreeBSD deprecation policies
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 5:23 AM, Paul Webster wrote:
> Good day all,
>
> I am aware this is a much discussed subject since the upgrade of PF, I
> believe the final decision was that to many users are used to the old
> style pf and an upgrade to the new syntax would cause to much confusion.
>
> Th
With a topology like:
- ADSL 1
LAN PF Box - Switch |
- ADSL 2
Is there a way to NAT and distribute LAN to internet traffic on the two
ADSL links apart from adding a third NIC to PF box?
_
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 7:46 AM, Odhiambo Washington wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 5:23 AM, Paul Webster <
> paul.g.webs...@googlemail.com
> > wrote:
>
> > Good day all,
> >
> > I am aware this is a much discussed subject since the upgrade of PF, I
> > believe the final decision was that to man
15 matches
Mail list logo
