From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Oct 10 09:13:24 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 068E7106564A for ; Mon, 10 Oct 2011 09:13:24 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from patfbsd@davenulle.org) Received: from smtp.lamaiziere.net (net.lamaiziere.net [94.23.254.147]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC8918FC15 for ; Mon, 10 Oct 2011 09:13:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from baby-jane.lamaiziere.net (unknown [192.168.1.10]) by smtp.lamaiziere.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C529AFAA2C87; Mon, 10 Oct 2011 11:13:21 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by baby-jane.lamaiziere.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A0E62CEC1E; Mon, 10 Oct 2011 11:16:34 +0200 (CEST) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2011 11:16:32 +0200 From: Patrick Lamaiziere To: Victor Sudakov Message-ID: <20111010111632.5a8dfb0b@davenulle.org> In-Reply-To: <20111010071053.GB23778@admin.sibptus.tomsk.ru> References: <20111008235238.GB3136@hs1.VERBENA> <20111009015141.GA60380@hs1.VERBENA> <20111009051554.GA91440@admin.sibptus.tomsk.ru> <20111009083855.0e9879f6@davenulle.org> <20111009073910.GB92531@admin.sibptus.tomsk.ru> <4E91890D.7050105@gmx.com> <20111010071053.GB23778@admin.sibptus.tomsk.ru> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.7.9 (GTK+ 2.22.1; i386-portbld-freebsd8.2) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: FreeBSD Questions Subject: Re: need help with pf configuration X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2011 09:13:24 -0000 Le Mon, 10 Oct 2011 14:10:53 +0700, Victor Sudakov a écrit : > The problem is, there could be several routed networks behind the > inside interfaces. Not all inside networks are directly connected, and > the :network macro works only for directly connected interfaces, > right? Rigth, this is why I suggest urpf-failed instead. Regards.