Re: pfsync and tables

[Jeff Wilson <wilsonj_(_at_)_cs_(_dot_)_ecs_(_dot_)_baylor_(_dot_)_edu>]

On Thu, 10 Jun 2004, Jeff Wilson wrote:

> To the pfsync gurus,
>  ... <snip> ... 
> 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?

Sorry for the re-post, but I wanted to shorten it to get to my main point: 
I have a ruleset involving dynamic rules.  What is the best method 
(anchors, tables, "other") to get those dynamic rules pfsync'd across my 
two firewalls?  Right now, we're using tables, but that's not (yet) 
supported by pfsync.  Any ideas?

Thanks for your time,

          Jeff