• Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • Users
  • Search
  • Register
  • Login
Netgate Discussion Forum
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • Users
  • Search
  • Register
  • Login

Alias

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Firewalling
5 Posts 3 Posters 3.8k Views
Loading More Posts
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • T
    trendchiller
    last edited by Nov 25, 2005, 1:51 PM

    Hi !

    Anyone found a way to define a protocol grout where there are mixed protocols inside (for example VPN with TCP and UDP protocols) ?
    Or is it really the right way to define two separate groups - one for UDP and the other for TCP ?

    Furthermore why is it not possible to use underscores or else for alias-names ?

    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
    • ?
      Guest
      last edited by Nov 26, 2005, 5:06 PM

      @trendchiller:

      Furthermore why is it not possible to use underscores or else for alias-names ?

      This is a limitation of pf.

      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • T
        trendchiller
        last edited by Nov 30, 2005, 3:14 PM

        Perhaps an issue to be changed !?
        think for a couple of protocol groups that are mixed with TCP/UDP or GRE, whatever, ex. VPN-rules.
        ok, you could set up separate rules for each protocol, but would be nicer to disable the protocol-button when a port-alias is used… !?

        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • H
          hoba
          last edited by Nov 30, 2005, 4:04 PM

          An option to be considered would be to create one Alias for such a group and create one rule for it in the webgui. The backend then can create a bunch of rules that only display as one rule at the frontend. Backend and frontend don't need to be the same here.  I agree that this would be something nice to have (maybe there are other options, but here is the place to discuss  ;) ) but main focus atm is getting to release status. Maybe after 1.0 is out. We should keep the thought…

          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • T
            trendchiller
            last edited by Nov 30, 2005, 7:44 PM

            Nice :-)

            would be an interesting idea…

            keep on to the release state !!!

            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            5 out of 5
            • First post
              5/5
              Last post
            Copyright 2025 Rubicon Communications LLC (Netgate). All rights reserved.
              This community forum collects and processes your personal information.
              consent.not_received