sven falempin gmail.com> writes:
>
> The patch is extending the rules
Yes
> so i dont see how it could behave differently
If there's way to make thing better, why not?
> The original set of percentage is still strange so you have a point.
Don't mind rules, they are just example. Real config
On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 03:42:28PM -0400, Dave Anderson wrote:
> This appears to be intended to divide connections equally among five
> ports, but (given that the probability applies only to the packets which
> actually reach the rule) doesn't it actually divide them as 20%, 16%,
> 12.8%, 10.24%, 4
The patch is extending the rules, so i dont see how it could behave
differently
The original set of percentage is still strange so you have a point.
Unless they expect this behavior (they still end with the good 100% rules)
isn't it possible to round robin this ? with relayd or something else ?
On Tue, 17 Sep 2013, Ivan Popovski wrote:
>Hi
>
>I've been asked, by net admin, to implement pf.conf simplification for
>divert-to rule. Reason is that divert-to is written to support only one
>port per line and because of that there are situations where admins
>must write lot of lines only becaus
Hi
I've been asked, by net admin, to implement pf.conf simplification for
divert-to rule.
Reason is that divert-to is written to support only one port per line
and because of that there are situations where admins must write lot of lines
only because different ports. After looking at pfctl/parse.
