From owner-freebsd-pf@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Nov 16 10:59:33 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-pf@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E96F106566C for ; Mon, 16 Nov 2009 10:59:33 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ask@develooper.com) Received: from x8.develooper.com (mbox1.develooper.com [207.171.7.178]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5AD538FC13 for ; Mon, 16 Nov 2009 10:59:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 31412 invoked from network); 16 Nov 2009 10:59:32 -0000 Received: from cpe-75-83-150-233.socal.res.rr.com (HELO embla.bn.dev) (ask@mail.dev@75.83.150.233) by smtp.develooper.com with ESMTPA; 16 Nov 2009 10:59:32 -0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1077) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Ask_Bj=F8rn_Hansen?= In-Reply-To: <20091116104413.GA32966@mx.hs.ntnu.edu.tw> Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 02:59:32 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <6967A89E-CF55-4F65-972E-864AAA50ED32@develooper.com> References: <20091116104413.GA32966@mx.hs.ntnu.edu.tw> To: Denny Lin X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1077) Cc: freebsd-pf@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Avoid keeping state of ntp requests X-BeenThere: freebsd-pf@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Technical discussion and general questions about packet filter \(pf\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 10:59:33 -0000 On Nov 16, 2009, at 2:44, Denny Lin wrote: >=20 >> I'm trying to avoid keeping state of ntp requests to our ntp servers. = They are on UDP and numerous, so it's just wasting a lot of space in = the state table. >>=20 >> I've tried various variations of 'pass quick', but some rule keeps = adding state for the port 123 requests. I've put the full output of = 'pfctl -sa' here: >=20 > Have you tried adding "no state" at the end of the rule? This way they > aren't added to the state table. Hi Denny, Yes, indeed - that's what I'm doing; I should have made that explicit in = the mail. I've put the pfctl -vsr output up here: http://tmp.askask.com/2009/11/pfctl-vsr.txt [ a little later ] Aargh! The problem was that the table in my rule was , = but the table with the IP addresses was ! Thanks for making me take a second[1] look. - ask [1] That's a joke, more like look number 217!