(private) HKS escreveu:

quoted text
>>> imho normally this packet wouldn't be queued because the last count

>>> matches the packet so the last rule applies:

>>>

>

> This is what I assumed at first, but the stickiness of tags and the

> (seeming) logic of doing the same with queues made me second-guess

> myself.

>

>

>

>> on the other hand:

>>

>> "During the filtering component of pf.conf, the last referenced

>> queue name is where any packets from pass rules will be queued..."

>>

>> that means because of the sequential order that the packet should be

>> queued imho.

>>

>

> Is that the case, or does that mean that packets passed by a statement

> on an altq-enabled interface without an explicit "queue "

> directive are automatically assigned to the last defined queue?

>

> My initial tests suggest that the queue statements are not sticky (ie,

> my initial rules would not have queued it in the "tens" queue), but

> I'm still not sure.

>

> -HKS

>

>

>

from pf.conf man page:

default     Packets not matched by another queue are assigned to this

                 one.  Exactly one default queue is *required.*
--

Giancarlo Razzolini

http://lock.razzolini.adm.br

Linux User 172199

Red Hat Certified Engineer no:804006389722501

Verify:https://www.redhat.com/certification/rhce/current/

Moleque Sem Conteudo Numero #002

OpenBSD Stable

Ubuntu 8.04 Hardy Heron

4386 2A6F FFD4 4D5F 5842  6EA0 7ABE BBAB 9C0E 6B85