From owner-freebsd-pf@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Aug 21 15:47:29 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-pf@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-pf@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2EFEB16A4E5 for ; Mon, 21 Aug 2006 15:47:29 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from zope@2012.vi) Received: from efit.xs4all.nl (efit.xs4all.nl [82.92.236.145]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A38F543DBA for ; Mon, 21 Aug 2006 15:47:14 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from zope@2012.vi) Received: from [10.0.0.172] (198puntacana97.codetel.net.do [200.88.97.198]) by efit.xs4all.nl (Weasel v1.73); 21 Aug 2006 17:43:17 Message-ID: <44E9D57C.9010905@2012.vi> Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 11:47:08 -0400 From: beno User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.5 (Windows/20060719) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Daniel Hartmeier , freebsd-pf@freebsd.org References: <44E9C775.5060009@2012.vi> <20060821151505.GA18457@insomnia.benzedrine.cx> In-Reply-To: <20060821151505.GA18457@insomnia.benzedrine.cx> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Subject: Re: Never Ask Questions On A Friday Afternoon 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: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 15:47:29 -0000 Daniel Hartmeier wrote: > If you don't care about that, the short answer is that the '/' in the > CIDR notation makes a difference, and you'll have to accept this as a > parser peculiarity. Alternatively you can send in a patch or request > your money back. > You mean, NOBODY has dealt with this problem before?! Are there no work-arounds?? What does everyone else do when faced with this problem?? And that only addresses (doesn't answer) the SECOND question. Here's the FIRST again: Hi; Let me try this again. Here's the beginning of my pf.conf: 1. # SETTING THE STAGE 2. # macros 3. ext_if="vr0" 4. int_if="lo0" 5. http_ports="80 8080 7080" 6. ssh_ports="22" 7. ftp_ports="21 8021 7021" 8. smtp_ports="25" 9. pop3_ports="110" 10. https_ports="443" 11. imap_ssl_ports="993 143" 12. squid_ports="3128" 13. mysql_ports="3306" 14. email_ports="{" $smtp_ports $pop3_ports "}" 15. all_http_ports="{" $http_ports $https_ports "}" 16. tcp_ports= "{" $ssh_ports $ftp_ports $all_http_ports $imap_ssl_ports "}" 17. int_ports="{" $squid_ports $mysql_ports "}" 18. tcp_services="ssh, ftp, http" 19. web_server="202.71.106.119" 20. NoRouteIPs = "127.0.0.0/8 192.168.0.0/16 172.16.0.0/12 10.0.0.0/8" 21. shinjiru_ip_addresses="202.71.102.114 202.71.100.126 202.71.106.30 202.71.106.118 202.71.106.188 203.142.1.8" 22. directv_ip_addresses="69.19.0.0 netmask 0.0.127.255" 23. shadday_ip_addresses="" 24. ssh_ip_addresses="{" $shinjiru_ip_addresses $directv_ip_addresses $shadday_ip_addresses "}" Here's what I get when I try to load it: server167# pfctl -f /etc/pf.conf /etc/pf.conf:16: syntax error /etc/pf.conf:24: syntax error pfctl: Syntax error in config file: pf rules not loaded QUESTION #1 Apparently, it doesn't like *one* my nested macros in line #16 (it likes all the others) QUESTION #2 and it doesn't like the CIDR netmask in line 22. Someone suggested I research the archives concerning the latter "where this known problem was already discussed" but I found nothing. Would someone care to help me with these problems now? TIA, beno