From owner-freebsd-pf@FreeBSD.ORG  Fri Jun  3 13:07:45 2005
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-pf@FreeBSD.ORG>
X-Original-To: freebsd-pf@freebsd.org
Delivered-To: freebsd-pf@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02C7016A41C
	for <freebsd-pf@freebsd.org>; Fri,  3 Jun 2005 13:07:45 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from Greg.Hennessy@nviz.net)
Received: from smtp.nildram.co.uk (smtp.nildram.co.uk [195.112.4.54])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2DA643D4C
	for <freebsd-pf@freebsd.org>; Fri,  3 Jun 2005 13:07:44 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from Greg.Hennessy@nviz.net)
Received: from gw2.local.net (unknown [62.3.210.251])
	by smtp.nildram.co.uk (Postfix) with ESMTP id CEFF62549C3
	for <freebsd-pf@freebsd.org>; Fri,  3 Jun 2005 14:07:40 +0100 (BST)
From: "Greg Hennessy" <Greg.Hennessy@nviz.net>
To: <freebsd-pf@freebsd.org>
Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2005 14:07:41 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.6353
Thread-Index: AcVoM/c1wkhg+fD7QE61FZPTh3V0TQACQS9w
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.3790.1830
In-Reply-To: <20050603115843.GA15561@comp.chem.msu.su>
Message-Id: <20050603130741.D427416@gw2.local.net>
Subject: RE: pfsync and asymmetric paths
X-BeenThere: freebsd-pf@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Technical discussion and general questions about packet filter
	\(pf\)" <freebsd-pf.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-pf>,
	<mailto:freebsd-pf-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-pf>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-pf@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-pf-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-pf>,
	<mailto:freebsd-pf-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2005 13:07:45 -0000

 
> Is it by design?  I'd like to make the asymmetric 
> configuration functional if possible at all, but I've been 
> unable to find any background information on the issue, such 
> as mailing list discussions or whatever.

Silly question, why are you not using CARP and using the virtual IP as the
egress/ingress next hop on both sides ? 


Greg