From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG  Wed Jan 31 11:02:10 2007
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG>
X-Original-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60F5316A401
	for <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>; Wed, 31 Jan 2007 11:02:10 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from petefrench@ticketswitch.com)
Received: from mail.ticketswitch.com (mail.ticketswitch.com [194.200.93.188])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24DA513C481
	for <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>; Wed, 31 Jan 2007 11:02:09 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from petefrench@ticketswitch.com)
Received: from [172.16.1.6] (helo=dilbert.ticketswitch.com)
	by mail.ticketswitch.com with esmtp (Exim 4.60 (FreeBSD))
	(envelope-from <petefrench@ticketswitch.com>)
	id 1HCDE8-000B2a-PH; Wed, 31 Jan 2007 11:02:08 +0000
Received: from petefrench by dilbert.ticketswitch.com with local (Exim 4.66
	(FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <petefrench@ticketswitch.com>)
	id 1HCDE8-000OoC-5u; Wed, 31 Jan 2007 11:02:08 +0000
To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, stable@museum.rain.com
In-Reply-To: <20070131004234.GA13590@ns.umpquanet.com>
Message-Id: <E1HCDE8-000OoC-5u@dilbert.ticketswitch.com>
From: Pete French <petefrench@ticketswitch.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 11:02:08 +0000
Cc: 
Subject: Re: impossible rc.d ordering problem with stf and pf ?
X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code <freebsd-stable.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-stable-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-stable-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable>,
	<mailto:freebsd-stable-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 11:02:10 -0000

> Just for my edification, what is the point of "keep state" on an
> "any-to-any" rule?

It's a 'pass out' rule - without the 'keep state' the returning packets
wont get back in.

-pete.