From owner-freebsd-pf@freebsd.org Tue Mar 21 02:30:33 2017 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-pf@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF6D2D15853 for ; Tue, 21 Mar 2017 02:30:33 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kristof@sigsegv.be) Received: from venus.codepro.be (venus.codepro.be [IPv6:2a01:4f8:162:1127::2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.codepro.be", Issuer "Gandi Standard SSL CA 2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9AF2613BB for ; Tue, 21 Mar 2017 02:30:33 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kristof@sigsegv.be) Received: from [10.248.64.39] (unknown [210.160.37.27]) (Authenticated sender: kp) by venus.codepro.be (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B99291E574; Tue, 21 Mar 2017 03:30:30 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sigsegv.be; s=mail; t=1490063431; bh=5oYV9CZngKAhGWP2uX+ktBEhbsWkL+K5W9Hw9AgPh80=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References; b=M1AJl2wrtA0cT1afzTFdK8JiiJzcUhdEeZ9Ruq21pv0kjlT/HHzDoJOovt1aUA2Y6 C1F0dwmk6sUpW7XxxLCCXWL8Y7No3LKHg454aqaEx3w6ohBBnlfxrJ1RIHwCwqsLux vp2bi07Rza9N682Jm34lNMm5r10ccicRAr3nR2PY= From: "Kristof Provost" To: "Marin Bernard" Cc: freebsd-pf@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Support for the enc(4) pseudo-interface Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2017 11:30:30 +0900 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <1490018913-f1619c15ef073d0f123d2a0940047986@olivarim.com> References: <1490018913-f1619c15ef073d0f123d2a0940047986@olivarim.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Mailer: MailMate (2.0BETAr6080) X-BeenThere: freebsd-pf@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 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: Tue, 21 Mar 2017 02:30:33 -0000 On 20 Mar 2017, at 23:08, Marin Bernard wrote: > Yet, it appears that pf is able to handle references to enc(4) in its > ruleset > even if the kernel does not support it. Is it expected behaviour? Is > it > safe to use such a configuration on a production machine ? > pf accepts rules for interfaces that don’t exist (yet), so this is expected, but it won’t do what you want it to do. Regards, Kristof