From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jul 5 18:32:54 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3258F16A41C for ; Tue, 5 Jul 2005 18:32:54 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from fbsd_user@a1poweruser.com) Received: from mta10.adelphia.net (mta10.adelphia.net [68.168.78.202]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBDD043D46 for ; Tue, 5 Jul 2005 18:32:53 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from fbsd_user@a1poweruser.com) Received: from barbish ([69.172.31.81]) by mta10.adelphia.net (InterMail vM.6.01.04.01 201-2131-118-101-20041129) with SMTP id <20050705183253.LCJE19267.mta10.adelphia.net@barbish> for ; Tue, 5 Jul 2005 14:32:53 -0400 From: "fbsd_user" To: "freebsd-questions@FreeBSD. ORG" Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2005 14:32:48 -0400 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409 Importance: Normal Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.5 Cc: Subject: PF firewall using anchors X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: fbsd_user@a1poweruser.com List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 05 Jul 2005 18:32:54 -0000 I am running 5.4 using the run time loadable module for PF firewall. The PF rules load and work fine. The main rule set contains 2 anchor rules. I can add rules to the in core anchor name and then list the anchor and see the rules are really there. Problem is the anchor rules are never being executed by the main rule set. Is there anybody on this questions list who has PF working with anchors? Have read all the PF man pages 6-8 times and my config seems ok. Knowing that PF is new to FreeBSD base in 5.4 so thinking this may be a bug.