I agree with this, we dont need 3 packet filters, it seems like we should focus the people interested in working on packet filters,toward the packet filter most actively maintained, the fact that there is 3 in base is overkill, Just depreciate it and be done with it.... a new email, asking for help to bring pf closer to OpenBSD, is more of a productive conversation.
On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 1:30 PM, wishmaster <artem...@ukr.net> wrote: > > > --- Original message --- > From: "Gary Palmer" <gpal...@freebsd.org> > Date: 14 April 2013, 19:06:59 > > > > 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 > creep > > up again as kernel APIs change. If the author has lost interest in > > maintaining the FreeBSD port of ipfilter then unless someone steps > forward > > to carry on the work, I don't see much of a future for ipfilter in > > FreeBSD > > > > Do we honestly need three packet filters? > > 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 functionality but with outdated bandwidth control mechanism (aka ALTQ); 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?.. > > Cheers, > > > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscr...@freebsd.org" > -- Sam Fourman Jr. _______________________________________________ freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
