From owner-freebsd-pf@freebsd.org Mon Jun 18 10:08:37 2018 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-pf@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A28F31021135 for ; Mon, 18 Jun 2018 10:08:37 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from srs0=yjwj=je=sigsegv.be=kristof@codepro.be) Received: from venus.codepro.be (venus.codepro.be [IPv6:2a01:4f8:162:1127::2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.codepro.be", Issuer "Gandi Standard SSL CA 2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1D34877AB7 for ; Mon, 18 Jun 2018 10:08:36 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from srs0=yjwj=je=sigsegv.be=kristof@codepro.be) Received: from [172.28.128.1] (ptr-8rgnodtz1gqjk3nexfr.18120a2.ip6.access.telenet.be [IPv6:2a02:1811:240b:b802:25e5:e0f5:ae3e:3c7]) (Authenticated sender: kp) by venus.codepro.be (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 030492D1D3; Mon, 18 Jun 2018 12:08:34 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sigsegv.be; s=mail; t=1529316515; bh=DQtU4K9ufkUNmWAJYNF22PT9qmgxJw5Q/BUPF7knuxQ=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References; b=R8wXBybQ1xDxB6A/tMkdXfwN3KV2G1lIpNOHTArrnLNBX87SQJfIt8Jb+A6aT5czM o5/fu7AtjAWiZqc7r5qGFvG6khn2Cizt1yRaP3+06Y8NwczIq/cF2mFz6jdMZ0e4g+ 414zDH4qlIDZLoq1KQ45zCRa4kXdTvcj2+JEHwBE= From: "Kristof Provost" To: "Chris H" Cc: "Miroslav Lachman" <000.fbsd@quip.cz>, "FreeBSD PF List" Subject: Re: Is there an upper limit to PF's tables? Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2018 12:08:33 +0200 X-Mailer: MailMate (2.0BETAr6113) Message-ID: <5C1BA1CA-5814-417F-BD9C-EC6E7F08588C@sigsegv.be> In-Reply-To: <05564c89db6cf667584dea5586602054@udns.ultimatedns.net> References: <05564c89db6cf667584dea5586602054@udns.ultimatedns.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.26 X-BeenThere: freebsd-pf@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26 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, 18 Jun 2018 10:08:37 -0000 On 18 Jun 2018, at 0:19, Chris H wrote: > Sorry. Looks like I might be coming to the party a little late. But > I'm > currently running a 9.3 box that runs as a IP (service) filter for > much > of a network. While I've patched the box well enough to keep it safe > to > continue running. I am reluctant to up(grade|date) it to 11, or > CURRENT, > based on some of the information related to topics like this thread. > Currently, the 9.3 box maintains some 18 million entries *just* within > the SPAM related table. The other tables contain no less that 1 > million. > As it stands I have *no* trouble loading pf(4) with all of the tables > totaling some 20+ million entries, *even* when the BOX is working with > as little 4Gb ram. > Has something in pf(4) changed, since 9.3 that would now prevent me > from continuing to use my current setup, and tables? > No. There are no new limits in 11, and the only thing that *might* be an issue is validation improvements in 12. Still, anything that worked on 9 is expected to work on 12 (if not, report a bug). Please don’t keep running unsupported versions. Regards, Kristof