Re: ipfilter(4) needs maintainer

On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 1:38 PM, Slawa Olhovchenkov <slw@zxy.spb.ru> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 02:15:36PM +0400, Lev Serebryakov wrote:
>
>> >> 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 one with excellent syntax and functionality but with outdated bandwidth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?..
>>
>> MM> ... and as far as I can tell none of them is currently usable
>> MM> on an IPv6-only FreeBSD (like protecting a host with sshguard),
>> MM> none of them supports stateful NAT64, nor IPv6 prefix translation :(
>>  IPv6 prefix translation?! AGAIN!? FML. I've thought, that IPv6 will
>> render all that NAT nightmare to void. I hope, IPv6 prefix translation
>> will not be possible never ever!
>
> You disallow anonymization? NAT do anonymisation also.
> _______________________________________________

Please stop it already, NAT has never done any real anonymisation.
it's just one of the myths that just refuse to die. Use a real
anonymiser like Tor if you want to keep your identity hidden.

-Kimmo
_______________________________________________
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"