From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Thu May 31 16:37:41 2012 Return-Path: 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 4166E106564A for ; Thu, 31 May 2012 16:37:41 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from nvass@gmx.com) Received: from mailout-us.mail.com (mailout-us.gmx.com [74.208.5.67]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id D14718FC0C for ; Thu, 31 May 2012 16:37:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 31 May 2012 16:37:33 -0000 Received: from g230070075.adsl.alicedsl.de (EHLO [192.168.178.28]) [92.230.70.75] by mail.gmx.com (mp-us007) with SMTP; 31 May 2012 12:37:33 -0400 X-Authenticated: #46156728 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX18Aw4JsUKAAc7xogsFJQxSzxXVYpv5RJA8eN8RECG 9BDL4kZC2LSs6G Message-ID: <4FC79E45.4060505@gmx.com> Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 18:37:25 +0200 From: Nikos Vassiliadis User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110414 Thunderbird/3.1.10 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Damien Fleuriot References: <4FC779C0.7020801@ohlste.in> <4FC77EAD.1090900@my.gd> <4FC78A94.8070008@ohlste.in> <4FC79136.6000205@my.gd> In-Reply-To: <4FC79136.6000205@my.gd> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, Jim Ohlstein Subject: Re: Why Are You Using FreeBSD? X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 16:37:41 -0000 On 5/31/2012 5:41 PM, Damien Fleuriot wrote: > Furthermore, when upgrading the CARP Master firewall, we need to plan > with the Project Manager a failover to the CARP Backup firewall. > Yes, I know about pfsync, yes, we use it, no, it doesn't *instantly* > sync sessions for PF. A bit offtopic on this thread, but isn't pfsync designed to do just that? instantly? With instantly I really mean: Communicate every change to the stable table to the other firewall in order to let the stateful connections survive a firewall failover. Obviously, some packets will be lost, but TCP connections should survive, right? I am not arguing, I ask. Nikos