On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 8:50 AM, Olivier Mehani wrote:
> I know this question has been asked before, but I'm after an up-to-date
> answer, or at least a confirmation.
>
> Has support for interface groups been implemented for altq?
No.
http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=127453585925685&w=2
Hi list,
I know this question has been asked before, but I'm after an up-to-date
answer, or at least a confirmation.
Has support for interface groups been implemented for altq? By that, I mean
the
possibility to use an interface group name with b altq on GROUPb to set up
similar queues for
* Daniel Melameth [2010-05-22 03:58]:
> I've considered migrating my macro-based interface names to interface
> groups, but, it appears, altq does not grok interface groups--and pfctl
> spits back a pfctl: SIOCGIFMTU: Device not configured when I try. Am I
> missing something
I've considered migrating my macro-based interface names to interface
groups, but, it appears, altq does not grok interface groups--and pfctl
spits back a pfctl: SIOCGIFMTU: Device not configured when I try. Am I
missing something here? pf.conf's BNF, it appears, says I'm not...
Hi,
setup: 4.2 with tun0 being a pppoe(8) int and tun1 being a ssh-vpn
over tun0. altq is running on tun0.
I know that altq doesn't support interface groups (and that support is
not planned (see
http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=112431574118264&w=2)) but is there
a way around th
On Thu, Nov 02, 2006 at 12:43:22PM +0100, Luca Corti wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Is there a native way to configure interface groups in hostname.if
> instead of doing manually
>
> ifconfig if ... group mygroup
>
> or calling ifconfig from the hostname.if file like this
>
On Nov 2, 2006, at 6:43 AM, Luca Corti wrote:
Hello,
Is there a native way to configure interface groups in hostname.if
instead of doing manually
ifconfig if ... group mygroup
or calling ifconfig from the hostname.if file like this
...
!ifconfig if group mygroup
?
This is not documented
Hello,
Is there a native way to configure interface groups in hostname.if
instead of doing manually
ifconfig if ... group mygroup
or calling ifconfig from the hostname.if file like this
...
!ifconfig if group mygroup
?
This is not documented in hostname.if(5).
thanks
Hi all,
I've been trying to get interface groups going on a machine and have met with a
possibly interesting problem.
I have declared an interface to be part of a group, and that group shows up
correctly if I `ifconfig foogroup` or `pfctl -s Interfaces`
I have a setup where I have one VPN
* Per-Olov Sj?holm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-02-23 22:08]:
> Hi misc
>
> Saw a post from june 2005 by Henning regarding the work he and Ryan did on
> code cleanup and the addition code of interface groups. I think I am on my
> way to abuse these groups as simple al
Hi misc
Saw a post from june 2005 by Henning regarding the work he and Ryan did on
code cleanup and the addition code of interface groups. I think I am on my
way to abuse these groups as simple alias to make PF totaly independant
from the hardware and put all my interface stuff in the hostname.if
after some private mails...
* Peter Fraser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-11-20 21:30]:
> I was trying out the interface groups of pf 3.8, I was surprised to
> get a syntax error with:
>
> pass out quick proto { tcp udp }
> from egress to any port domain flags S/SA keep
I was trying out the interface groups of pf 3.8, I was surprised to
get a syntax error with:
pass out quick proto { tcp udp }
from egress to any port domain flags S/SA keep state
you do not get an error message for
pass out quick proto { tcp udp }
from (egress) to any port domain
* Henning Brauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-10-12 17:17]:
> no, I managed to miss implementing the static expansion, the way more
> complicated dynamic expansion for interface groups works fine. I'll add
> the static one asap.
so here's the diff for that.
discl
t interface such as vlan0.
>
> So my question is: did I misread this?
no, I managed to miss implementing the static expansion, the way more
complicated dynamic expansion for interface groups works fine. I'll add
the static one asap.
however, you probably don't want that anyway. ex
Sorry, should have indicated I'm using OpenBSD version 3.8
dmesg:
OpenBSD 3.8-current (GENERIC) #169: Sun Oct 2 15:06:50 MDT 2005
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/src/sys/arch/i386/compile/GENERIC
cpu0: Intel Pentium III ("GenuineIntel" 686-class, 512KB L2 cache) 549
MHz
cpu0:
FPU,V86,DE,PSE,TSC,MSR,P
Under the Tables section in the pf.conf(5) man page, it is indicated
that tables can be created with a valid interface group. I'm taking
this to mean I can do the following:
table { vlan }
or better yet:
table { egress }
but when loading up the ruleset or even trying to manually add the tabl
* Jason Crawford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-08-17 21:55]:
> On 8/17/05, Henning Brauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > * Jason Crawford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-08-17 18:47]:
> > > Do interface groups support altq?
> > in the sense of queuing on interface g
On 8/17/05, Henning Brauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Jason Crawford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-08-17 18:47]:
> > Do interface groups support altq?
>
> in the sense of queuing on interface groups, no, not really.
>
Is this a work in progress? Planned but afte
* Jason Crawford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-08-17 18:47]:
> Do interface groups support altq?
in the sense of queuing on interface groups, no, not really.
--
BS Web Services, http://www.bsws.de/
OpenBSD-based Webhosting, Mail Services, Managed Servers, ...
Unix is very simple, but i
Do interface groups support altq? It would appear that they do not,
but I might have a borked kernel/pfctl utility, so wanted to ask the
list to make sure. When I try to put altq on an interface group, i get
the following when parsing my pf.conf:
$ sudo pfctl -f /etc/pf.conf -n
pfctl: SIOCGIFDATA
On Sat, Aug 13, 2005 at 07:16:59PM +0200, Smonek wrote:
> Hello,everybody!
hi,
> I have one question : When : Interface groups in PF ?
when?:) in -current, actually in -beta, try latest snapshot and search
archives for Henning`s announce for more details.
--
Lukasz Sztac
* Erik Wikstrvm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-07-06 22:54]:
> set loginterface if_ext
> All seems fine, running pfctl -n on it produces nothing, but when
> trying to load the rules I get DIOSETSTATUSIF, and no rules are
> loaded. What am I doing wrong?
oh hmm loginterface does not support groups.
--
--On 07 July 2005 20:22 +0200, Erik WikstrC6m wrote:
Computers on the local network were able to ping the OpenBSD-box but
not the other way around, I just got "Sendto: No route to host".
Carefully verify your rules - easiest way is to make sure you 'log' on
all your block rules then monitor t
On 2005-07-07 18:47, Vivek Ayer wrote:
Try running pfctl -nf; use both switches. This should give you an
error (syntax error) to which it refers you to a line where something
went wrong.
Sorry, I was being unclear, I did use -nf. However I did get rid of that
problem by setting a real interface
Try running pfctl -nf; use both switches. This should give you an
error (syntax error) to which it refers you to a line where something
went wrong.
pass out on ath0 from any to ath0:network keep state
pass in on rl0 from rl0:network to any keep state
pass out on rl0 from any to rl0:network keep state
pass out on rl1 proto tcp all modulate state flags S/SA
pass out on rl1 proto { udp, icmp } all keep state
--
Gah, should have read more carfully, using (if_ext:network)
works just fine.
--
Erik Wikstrvm
Hi
I'm trying to set up a box as a router for my home network, I
have 3 NICs, one external, one wireless, and one internal. I've
put the external in group if_ext and the wireless and the
internal in group if_int, the reason for this is that it gives
me a little more generic pf.conf (and it's fun)
Hi all.
And is ALTQ will work on such groups? For example, I had
altq on $ext_if_1 priq bandwidth 10Mb queue { q_pri_1, q_def_1 }
queue q_pri_1 priority 7
queue q_def_1 priority 1 priq(default)
altq on $ext_if_2 priq bandwidth 10Mb queue { q_pri_2, q_def_2 }
Henning Brauer wrote:
So, after cleaning up the interface abstraction code in pf with Ryan
before the Hackathon, I worked on interface groups integration to pf.
<...>
joining to others: great work.
So for now isakmpd have not need to listen on the routing socket by
itself to be
where do one get the the 1 litre stella bottle?
/Isak
tony sarendal wrote:
pf is the best thing since the 1-litre stella bottle. It's good to see
that it continues to improve. This is cool stuff.
/Tony S
Hey!
On Thu, Jun 16, 2005 at 08:55:48PM +0200, Henning Brauer wrote:
>So, after cleaning up the interface abstraction code in pf with Ryan
>before the Hackathon, I worked on interface groups integration to pf.
>[... much description ...]
Sounds like *very* cool work.
Kind regards,
Hannah.
On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 20:55:48 +0200, Henning Brauer
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>So, after cleaning up the interface abstraction code in pf with Ryan
>before the Hackathon, I worked on interface groups integration to pf.
>
Henning, Ryan and all involved -Very Amazing Work. Thank You!
JCR
Henning Brauer wrote:
holy crap, Henning, you are an absolute Legend. ^_^
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.7.5/18 - Release Date: 15/06/2005
pf is the best thing since the 1-litre stella bottle. It's good to see
that it continues to improve. This is cool stuff.
/Tony S
h for this amazing work.
Jason
On 6/16/05, Henning Brauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So, after cleaning up the interface abstraction code in pf with Ryan
> before the Hackathon, I worked on interface groups integration to pf.
>
> An interface group, is, well, a group of int
Marvelous work. Thank you. :)
Cool
how's your new notebook?
So, after cleaning up the interface abstraction code in pf with Ryan
before the Hackathon, I worked on interface groups integration to pf.
An interface group, is, well, a group of interfaces (surprised,
anyone?). Interfaces can join and leave interface groups any time, and
can be member in an
* Henning Brauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-06-05 22:36]:
> * Frank Denis (Jedi/Sector One) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-06-05 22:22]:
> > Since -current changed a bit the way interface groups are working, is
> > there a simple way to emulate the old behavior?
> >
* Frank Denis (Jedi/Sector One) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-06-05 22:22]:
> Since -current changed a bit the way interface groups are working, is
> there a simple way to emulate the old behavior?
>
> Specifically, I have a pptp server using poptop that creates a lot of tun
Hello.
Since -current changed a bit the way interface groups are working, is
there a simple way to emulate the old behavior?
Specifically, I have a pptp server using poptop that creates a lot of tun
interfaces. But these interfaces are not automatically assigned to an
interface group. So
43 matches
Mail list logo
