From owner-freebsd-pf@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Feb 26 16:10:15 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-pf@hub.freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-pf@hub.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2008E16A420 for ; Sun, 26 Feb 2006 16:10:15 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [216.136.204.21]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6D1143D49 for ; Sun, 26 Feb 2006 16:10:14 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (gnats@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id k1QGAEh7079357 for ; Sun, 26 Feb 2006 16:10:14 GMT (envelope-from gnats@freefall.freebsd.org) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.13.4/8.13.4/Submit) id k1QGAE9n079356; Sun, 26 Feb 2006 16:10:14 GMT (envelope-from gnats) Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 16:10:14 GMT Message-Id: <200602261610.k1QGAE9n079356@freefall.freebsd.org> To: freebsd-pf@FreeBSD.org From: "Bill Marquette" Cc: Subject: Re: kern/93829: [carp] pfsync state time problem with CARP + Arp.Balance X-BeenThere: freebsd-pf@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: Bill Marquette 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: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 16:10:15 -0000 The following reply was made to PR kern/93829; it has been noted by GNATS. From: "Bill Marquette" To: "Jon Simola" Cc: freebsd-pf@freebsd.org, bug-followup@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: kern/93829: [carp] pfsync state time problem with CARP + Arp.Balance Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 10:02:34 -0600 On 2/26/06, Jon Simola wrote: > On 2/25/06, Mark Linimon wrote: > > > http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=3D93829 > > > pfsync0: flags=3D41 mtu 1348 > > pfsync: syncdev: fxp0 syncpeer: 15.1.1.1 maxupd: 128 > > > ### Pfsync Rule > > pass quick on { em1 } proto pfsync > > This problem seems obvious. Yep, looks like user error in this case. However, I've seen this happen when I've accidentally had carp mismatches such that my firewalls were also seeing an asymmetric traffic stream. The hazard of fast networks (and possibly slow machines) I'm afraid. --Bill