Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2011 14:39:10 +0700 From: Victor Sudakov <vas@mpeks.tomsk.su> To: FreeBSD Questions <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: need help with pf configuration Message-ID: <20111009073910.GB92531@admin.sibptus.tomsk.ru> In-Reply-To: <20111009083855.0e9879f6@davenulle.org> References: <CAEZdUGikPzsN=q-m_szHJCGxGT81UGA7Lbd7remTDdiqM5p3og@mail.gmail.com> <20111008235238.GB3136@hs1.VERBENA> <CAEZdUGiV_aXM67S4Yfw-i5tPZcwCWOiKPSFCPBOLkCfWjMmjeQ@mail.gmail.com> <20111009015141.GA60380@hs1.VERBENA> <20111009051554.GA91440@admin.sibptus.tomsk.ru> <20111009083855.0e9879f6@davenulle.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Patrick Lamaiziere wrote: > > > I have a configuration with 2 inside interfaces, 1 outside and 1 dmz > > interface. The traffic should be able to flow > > > > 1) from inside1 to any (and back) > > 2) from inside2 to any (and back) > > 3) from dmz to outside only (and back). > > > > I need no details, just a general hint how to setup such security > > levels, preferably independent of actual IP addressses behind the > > interfaces (a :network macro is not always sufficient). > > You may use urpf-failed instead :network > urpf-failed: Any source address that fails a unicast reverse path > forwarding (URPF) check, i.e. packets coming in on an interface other > than that which holds the route back to the packet's source address. Excuse me, I do not see how this is relevant to my question (allowing traffic to be initiated from a more secure interface to a less secure interface and not vice versa). -- Victor Sudakov, VAS4-RIPE, VAS47-RIPN sip:sudakov@sibptus.tomsk.ru
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20111009073910.GB92531>