From owner-freebsd-pf@freebsd.org Wed Jan 23 08:11:16 2019 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 7305414BECE4 for ; Wed, 23 Jan 2019 08:11:16 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (mailman.ysv.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::50:5]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 085198F757 for ; Wed, 23 Jan 2019 08:11:16 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) id BD53114BECE3; Wed, 23 Jan 2019 08:11:15 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: 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 A8AED14BECE2 for ; Wed, 23 Jan 2019 08:11:15 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from mxrelay.ysv.freebsd.org (mxrelay.ysv.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:3]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "mxrelay.ysv.freebsd.org", Issuer "Let's Encrypt Authority X3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E6D818F751 for ; Wed, 23 Jan 2019 08:11:14 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org (kenobi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::16:76]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mxrelay.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3C3241FA4C for ; Wed, 23 Jan 2019 08:11:14 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org ([127.0.1.118]) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id x0N8BE1A075816 for ; Wed, 23 Jan 2019 08:11:14 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: (from www@localhost) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id x0N8BEPe075815 for pf@FreeBSD.org; Wed, 23 Jan 2019 08:11:14 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) X-Authentication-Warning: kenobi.freebsd.org: www set sender to bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org using -f From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: pf@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 229092] [pf] [pfsync] States created by route-to rules pfsynced without interface Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2019 08:11:14 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: AssignedTo X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: Base System X-Bugzilla-Component: kern X-Bugzilla-Version: 11.1-RELEASE X-Bugzilla-Keywords: patch X-Bugzilla-Severity: Affects Some People X-Bugzilla-Who: vegeta@tuxpowered.net X-Bugzilla-Status: New X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: --- X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: pf@FreeBSD.org X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-BeenThere: freebsd-pf@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 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: Wed, 23 Jan 2019 08:11:16 -0000 https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D229092 --- Comment #13 from Kajetan Staszkiewicz --- (In reply to Kristof Provost from comment #12) pfcksum only checks if loaded rules are the same, it does not ensure rules = are the same on 2 routers. There are a few ways to have different rulesets, let= me give you a little list I came across while trying to make pfsync work: - Any rule using interface IP addresses in unnamed table {} will end up bei= ng different on 2 routers unless named {} is used. - Same thing for SNAT rules, although I'm unsure if those are included in pfchecksum. - If ruleset is dynamically generated by a script, data structure might not have explicit ordering and produce different result on each run: for me it = was Python and its dictionaries and sets. - In a dynamical environment it might happen that the ruleset is different = for short periods of time when new configuration is applied as it will never be applied at exactly the same time on both routers. For me on some loadbalanc= ers new configuration is applied tens of times a day. --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.=