From owner-freebsd-pf@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Nov 20 06:53:38 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-pf@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3F8816A417; Tue, 20 Nov 2007 06:53:37 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dhartmei@insomnia.benzedrine.cx) Received: from insomnia.benzedrine.cx (insomnia.benzedrine.cx [IPv6:2001:6f8:1098::2]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 798E013C46A; Tue, 20 Nov 2007 06:53:36 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dhartmei@insomnia.benzedrine.cx) Received: from insomnia.benzedrine.cx (localhost.benzedrine.cx [127.0.0.1]) by insomnia.benzedrine.cx (8.14.1/8.13.4) with ESMTP id lAK6rYYU032279 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-DSS-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 20 Nov 2007 07:53:34 +0100 (MET) Received: (from dhartmei@localhost) by insomnia.benzedrine.cx (8.14.1/8.12.10/Submit) id lAK6rY4N003488; Tue, 20 Nov 2007 07:53:34 +0100 (MET) Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 07:53:34 +0100 From: Daniel Hartmeier To: Jan Srzednicki Message-ID: <20071120065334.GJ29432@insomnia.benzedrine.cx> References: <20071119202142.GI2045@oak.pl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20071119202142.GI2045@oak.pl> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.12-2006-07-14 Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, freebsd-pf@freebsd.org Subject: Re: pf(4) using inapropriate timeout values, 6.2-R 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: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 06:53:38 -0000 On Mon, Nov 19, 2007 at 09:21:42PM +0100, Jan Srzednicki wrote: > I'm positively sure it's precisely this value that timeouts this > conection (which later on get state mismatches). What does pfctl -vvss show for such a state entry, in particular the right-most part of the first line ("ESTABLISHED:ESTABLISHED" while the connection is still fully established, etc.)? Does it matter which side of the connection (the client or the server) half-closes the connection? It's possible that there's a bug in mapping the timeout, I'll check. Daniel