[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

pfsync and tables

To the pfsync gurus,

I have two identical OpenBSD 3.5 boxes in a CARP/pfsync setup.  By
identical, I mean same OS versions, same hardware, etc.  Congratulations
on an amazing job of putting together CARP!  I was impressed at how easily
it came together.

Pardon my ASCII art:

               MAIN CAMPUS ROUTER  x.y.126.1
                     / \         CARP: x.y.126.2
                    A   B
                     \ /         CARP: x.y.127.1
                      |              x.y.127.5
                   /// \\\       x.y.100.0, x.y.102.0, etc
               VARIOUS SUBNETS

The configuration as shown functions well -- kudos to CARP!! My question 
is about setting up dynamic rules for hosts in the x.y.100.*, x.y.102.*, 
etc.  Right now I have persistent tables set up in pf.conf so that I can 
authenticate a downstream user by running

  pfctl -t table_100 -T add x.y.100.28
at the command prompt on Firewall A (master).  I watch and cross my
fingers, but the table entry never makes the jump across the pfsync0
interface to Firewall B.  Now that I've gone back and RTFM, I see that's
not yet a supported feature of pfsync.  So I work around it by manually
adding to table_100 on BOTH firewalls.  Then I take down carp0 and carp1
on Firewall A to see if state propagates across pfsync0, but there's no
state on Firewall B for my dynamic rule.  I can initiate new TCP sessions,
but all state on existing Firewall A (for my table entry) is lost when
Firewall B takes over master.

How would you keep state for dynamically added/deleted rules across 
redundant firewalls?  I have verified that a static rule's state syncs 
just fine across pfsync0, but the table stuff doesn't.  Any suggestions?


Jeff Wilson                     Senior Analyst/Programmer
Baylor University                  Network Services Group
Waco, TX                  Information Technology Services

Visit your host, monkey.org