From owner-freebsd-pf@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Aug 27 19:22:51 2008 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 B9FB5106568F for ; Wed, 27 Aug 2008 19:22:51 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from buchtajz@borsice.net) Received: from mx.sitkom.cz (mx.sitkom.cz [88.146.187.34]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 811DD8FC16 for ; Wed, 27 Aug 2008 19:22:51 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from buchtajz@borsice.net) Received: from [10.10.0.12] (manwe.buchtikov.borsice.sfn [10.10.0.12]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.sitkom.cz (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 70CD71C1299 for ; Wed, 27 Aug 2008 21:22:56 +0200 (CEST) From: Michal Buchtik To: freebsd-pf In-Reply-To: <64de5c8b0808270347p2d8cf9ccydd63cae3b1ea6a14@mail.gmail.com> References: <64de5c8b0808270347p2d8cf9ccydd63cae3b1ea6a14@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2008 21:22:48 +0200 Message-Id: <1219864968.1536.14.camel@manwe.buchtikov.borsice.sfn> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.22.3.1 FreeBSD GNOME Team Port Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: ALTQ and shaping an existing session 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: Wed, 27 Aug 2008 19:22:51 -0000 Rajkumar S píše v st 27. 08. 2008 v 16:17 +0530: > The problem is that even when a new ip is added to or removed from > already existing sessions from the newly added ip continues > to have previous shaping configuration. All new sessions are shaped as > expected. I have tried rules without "keep state", but results are the > same. Is this the expected behavior of pf? Can the shaping be > performed for existing sessions also when an ip is added to ? I have same problem. The only way I found is kill existing states of affected ip's. But this is uncomfortable for users. Is there another solution? Michal