Re: Upgrading FreeBSD to use the NEW pf syntax.

2012-11-20 Thread Sami Halabi
Hi, This was actually discussed much before, as I read it would make some issues with the new pf-smp work done by gleb. Sami On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 9:55 AM, Ermal Luçi wrote: > On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 7:46 AM, Odhiambo Washington >wrote: > > > On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 5:23 AM, Paul Webster <

Re: WAN load balance with PF

2012-11-20 Thread Hooma Fazaeli
On 11/20/2012 01:24 ?.?, Cpet Services wrote: http://forums.freebsd.org/showthread.php?t=30409 might help you. also possibly with carp? *From:* Hooman Fazaeli > *Sent:* November 20, 2012 1:15 AM *To:* freebsd-pf@freebsd.org *Subject

Re: WAN load balance with PF

2012-11-20 Thread Daniel Hartmeier
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 01:52:43PM +0330, Hooma Fazaeli wrote: > If we could connect both ADSl modems to the box, a config like below > would work: > > lan_if = "em0" > wan_if1 = "em1" > wan_if2 = "em2" > > nat on $wan_if1 from $lan_if1:network to any -> $wan_if1 > nat on $wan_if2 from $lan_if1

Re: WAN load balance with PF

2012-11-20 Thread Hooma Fazaeli
On 11/20/2012 02:04 ب.ظ, Daniel Hartmeier wrote: On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 01:52:43PM +0330, Hooma Fazaeli wrote: If we could connect both ADSl modems to the box, a config like below would work: lan_if = "em0" wan_if1 = "em1" wan_if2 = "em2" nat on $wan_if1 from $lan_if1:network to any -> $wan_

Re: WAN load balance with PF

2012-11-20 Thread Daniel Hartmeier
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 02:26:15PM +0330, Hooma Fazaeli wrote: > > # assuming default route through $wan_if1 > > nat on $wan_if1 from $lan_if1:network to any -> { $wan_if1 $wan_if2 } > > round-robin > > pass out on $wan_if1 route-to ($wan_if2 $wan_ip2) from $wan_if2 to any > > > >Daniel >

Re: Upgrading FreeBSD to use the NEW pf syntax.

2012-11-20 Thread Mark Martinec
Paul Webster wrote: > I am aware this is a much discussed subject since the upgrade of PF, > I believe the final decision was that too many users are used to the old > style pf and an upgrade to the new syntax would cause too much confusion. I don't buy that. Think of a confusion in a year of two

Re: Upgrading FreeBSD to use the NEW pf syntax.

2012-11-20 Thread Ermal Luçi
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 9:07 AM, Sami Halabi wrote: > Hi, > This was actually discussed much before, as I read it would make some > issues with the new pf-smp work done by gleb. > > Not really since Gleb just changed the locking and nothing else. All his work is under the hood. He actually broke

Re: WAN load balance with PF

2012-11-20 Thread Jon Radel
Yes, use a switch that handles vlans and make use of them. --Jon Radel j...@radel.com Sent from my iPad On Nov 20, 2012, at 2:15, Hooman Fazaeli wrote: > > With a topology like: > - ADSL 1 > LAN PF Box - Switch | > - A

Re: WAN load balance with PF

2012-11-20 Thread Hooma Fazaeli
On 11/20/2012 03:31 ب.ظ, Daniel Hartmeier wrote: On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 02:26:15PM +0330, Hooma Fazaeli wrote: # assuming default route through $wan_if1 nat on $wan_if1 from $lan_if1:network to any -> { $wan_if1 $wan_if2 } round-robin pass out on $wan_if1 route-to ($wan_if2 $wan_ip

Re: Upgrading FreeBSD to use the NEW pf syntax.

2012-11-20 Thread Kevin Wilcox
On Nov 20, 2012 9:44 AM, "Mark Martinec" wrote: > > Paul Webster wrote: > > I am aware this is a much discussed subject since the upgrade of PF, > > I believe the final decision was that too many users are used to the old > > style pf and an upgrade to the new syntax would cause too much confusion

Re: Upgrading FreeBSD to use the NEW pf syntax.

2012-11-20 Thread Gleb Smirnoff
Mark, On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 03:43:17PM +0100, Mark Martinec wrote: M> For one thing, I'm desperately awaiting NAT64 support (the 'af-to' M> translation rule in newer pf (5.1?), committed on 2011-10). Backport this exact feature to FreeBSD and send patch. M> Other: packet normalization (scrub