using macros with reply-to

2012-11-01 Thread Fernando Braga
Hi, I had this pf rules int_if = "trunk1" cosmo = 172.16.99.249 pass in on $int_if from to ! route-to $cosmo@$int_if However, when I issue a pfctl -sr, I get pass in on trunk1 inet from to ! flags S/SA route-to 172.16.99.249@$int_if Shouldn't this @$int_if be translated to trunk1 ? Is th

Re: OBSD51: using macros with reply-to

2012-11-01 Thread Fernando Braga
Hi Patrick, Thanks for your response. I've also been using this legacy format, but when I tried the new format, pfctl didn't complain, but didn't apply it. sperreault@ confirmed this is a known issue, and will be addressed in time. Thanks for you attention. On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 4:33 PM, Pat

Re: OBSD51: using macros with reply-to

2012-11-01 Thread Patrick Lamaiziere
Le Thu, 1 Nov 2012 13:28:18 -0200, Fernando Braga a écrit : Hello, > pass in on $int_if from to ! route-to > $cosmo@$int_if > > However, when I issue a pfctl -sr, I get > > pass in on trunk1 inet from to ! flags S/SA > route-to 172.16.99.249@$int_if > > Shouldn't this @$int_if be translat

Re: OBSD51: using macros with reply-to

2012-11-01 Thread Gleydson Soares
the syntax should be like this: pass in on $int_if from to ! route-to ($int_if $cosmo) On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 1:28 PM, Fernando Braga wrote: > Hi, > > I had this pf rules > > int_if = "trunk1" > cosmo = 172.16.99.249 > > pass in on $int_if from to ! route-to $cosmo@$int_if > > However, when I

OBSD51: using macros with reply-to

2012-11-01 Thread Fernando Braga
Hi, I had this pf rules int_if = "trunk1" cosmo = 172.16.99.249 pass in on $int_if from to ! route-to $cosmo@$int_if However, when I issue a pfctl -sr, I get pass in on trunk1 inet from to ! flags S/SA route-to 172.16.99.249@$int_if Shouldn't this @$int_if be translated to trunk1 ? Is th