From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jun 7 11:00:09 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 988091065672 for ; Mon, 7 Jun 2010 11:00:09 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from pieter@thelostparadise.com) Received: from mail.thelostparadise.com (router.thelostparadise.com [IPv6:2a02:898:0:30::30:1]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31F158FC08 for ; Mon, 7 Jun 2010 11:00:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail.thelostparadise.com (Postfix, from userid 127) id 0991873054; Mon, 7 Jun 2010 13:00:08 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost by mail.thelostparadise.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2BBE73008 for ; Mon, 7 Jun 2010 13:00:07 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=simple/simple; d=thelostparadise.com; s=thelostparadise; t=1275908407; bh=tigJ2p0v8WFKvtdMOHvau3TeEiY=; h=Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:Subject:References: In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=okOgmOntu3jt 9xx7oDCKVlYLZ1pdK5v7+hrIUC+penF0mL3UodPINYSieYGIQDzjYzoAa1vuvQioGXN sRIJUqyf/3wcoA0G3iKYiyVsdTemZkekuA/7GwmHHQ8WXa+niDaYo5MrCTkxQ6/cpHU RLReu4TkFJ1HLE6zDoM/Azo5Q= Message-ID: <4C0CD137.60804@thelostparadise.com> Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2010 13:00:07 +0200 From: Pieter de Boer MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org References: <4C0CBA26.80209@os3.nl> In-Reply-To: <4C0CBA26.80209@os3.nl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: Connection rate limits with pf, blocks too soon? X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2010 11:00:09 -0000 On 06/07/2010 11:21 AM, Pieter de Boer wrote: > However, when I run a scanner against this web server, the source IP is > blocked after a few seconds and only a few tens of requests. Using > 'pfctl -s state' I confirmed that only 65 simultaneous states were > present, much lower than the limit. Turns out I was looking at the wrong rule. Sorry for the noise, Pieter