Re: ipfilter(4) needs maintainer
--SUOF0GtieIMvvwua
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 07:55:21PM +0100, Joe Holden wrote:
> wishmaster wrote:
>=20
> > --- Original message ---
> > From: "Gary Palmer" <gpalmer@freebsd.org>
> > Date: 14 April 2013, 19:06:59
> >=20
> > =20
> >> On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 09:48:33AM -0600, Warren Block wrote:
> >>> Is it possible to move ipfilter into a port?
> >> That may work short term, but the ENOMAINTAINER problem will quickly c=
reep
> >> up again as kernel APIs change. If the author has lost interest in
> >> maintaining the FreeBSD port of ipfilter then unless someone steps for=
ward
> >> to carry on the work, I don't see much of a future for ipfilter in
> >> FreeBSD
> >>
> >> Do we honestly need three packet filters?
> > =20
> > Yes! This is the most clever thought in this thread. Why we need
> > 3 firewalls? Two packet filters it's excess too.
> > We have two packet filters: one with excellent syntax and
> > functionality but with outdated bandwidth control mechanism
> > (aka ALTQ); another - with nice traffic shaper/prioritization
> > (dummynet)/classification (diffused) but with complicated
> > implementation in not trivial tasks.
> > May be the next step will be discussion about one packet filter in =
the system?..
> >=20
> > Cheers,
> For non-nat ipfw is still superior in every way, numbered rules (think:=
=20
> scripts), dummynet, much faster than pf, syntax is a lot nicer and=20
> predictable...
>=20
> Does anyone even use ipf? it doesn't even work on Linux anymore, junk it=
=20
> and keep pf+ipfw, job done.
m0n0wall uses ipfilter:
http://m0n0.ch/wall/facts.php
--SUOF0GtieIMvvwua
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (FreeBSD)
iEYEARECAAYFAlFr0z4ACgkQKc512sD3afigkgCgklyPLcaWJH3qt5S0U8iXp6xR
j1EAn1zbodljf60/M7bXSjT2C1rFF0bz
=faym
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--SUOF0GtieIMvvwua--
討論串 (同標題文章)
完整討論串 (本文為第 47 之 74 篇)：