From owner-freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Oct 29 13:20:28 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-bugs@hub.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4967D16A4D0 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 2004 13:20:28 +0000 (GMT) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [216.136.204.21]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36C6943D1F for ; Fri, 29 Oct 2004 13:20:28 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (gnats@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i9TDKSQ0051389 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 2004 13:20:28 GMT (envelope-from gnats@freefall.freebsd.org) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.12.11/8.12.11/Submit) id i9TDKRAH051388; Fri, 29 Oct 2004 13:20:27 GMT (envelope-from gnats) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 13:20:27 GMT Message-Id: <200410291320.i9TDKRAH051388@freefall.freebsd.org> To: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org From: "David Haworth" Subject: Re: kern/73202: IPF causing major tcp problems with 3rd party apps (apache, exim etc) X-BeenThere: freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: David Haworth List-Id: Bug reports List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 13:20:28 -0000 The following reply was made to PR kern/73202; it has been noted by GNATS. From: "David Haworth" To: "Giorgos Keramidas" Cc: bug-followup@freebsd.org Subject: Re: kern/73202: IPF causing major tcp problems with 3rd party apps (apache, exim etc) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 14:17:42 +0100 (BST) > I think you have problems because of the unmatched `in' rules for some > services that you make visible from outside. I call these rules > `unmatched' because there is no matching `out' rule to let the replies > get out too: well, there is an allow all out rule at the bottom, but my thought was that it worked absolutely fine when I was running 5.1, if ipf has become more strict about it's syntax then fair enough. to be honest, I thought it unlikely that such a showstopper could exist this close to release so if it's just me writing some slightly off colour rules then fair enough, we can close the bug. I just wanted to flag it if it wasn't. > Let us know if that fixes the problems you're seeing. well, I've transitioned the ruleset to pf now which is working fine and it's a production box in colo, so I can't keep swapping kernels in and out. I am happy to accept that you're above suggestion is correct. dave