Hi, This was actually discussed much before, as I read it would make some issues with the new pf-smp work done by gleb.
Sami On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 9:55 AM, Ermal Luçi <e...@freebsd.org> wrote: > On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 7:46 AM, Odhiambo Washington <odhia...@gmail.com > >wrote: > > > On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 5:23 AM, Paul Webster < > > paul.g.webs...@googlemail.com > > > wrote: > > > > > Good day all, > > > > > > I am aware this is a much discussed subject since the upgrade of PF, I > > > believe the final decision was that to many users are used to the old > > > style pf and an upgrade to the new syntax would cause to much > confusion. > > > > > > There was a recent debate on ##freebsd about this issue and I was > > inclined > > > to mail in and get your opinions; basically it boiled down to the > > majority > > > of users wanting either: > > > > > > 1) To move to the newer pf and just add to releases notes what had > > > happened, > > > and > > > 2) my own personal opinion: creating 'pf2-*' as a kernel option tree, > > > basically using the newer pf syntax and allowing users to choose. > > > > > > I would be interested to know the feedback from you guys as to be > honest > > > there seems to be quite a few users who actually DO want the new style > > > format and functionality that comes with. > > > > > > I Attached the log of the conversation just for reference. > > > > > > > > It's been difficult enough to maintain PF on FreeBSD because of the time > > needed to be invested in the FreeBSD port. > > This situation remains to date, from what I understand. I guess someone > can > > look at how many bugs/feature requests still remain open for PF on > FreeBSD. > > > > I therefore feel that whoever wants to run PF should use a dedicated > > OpenBSD box as a firewall/whatever they use PF for. > > There is really no point trying to make FreeBSD be OpenBSD when it comes > to > > such requirements. Look at the advantages of "separation of power" - give > > to OpenBSD the fireallpower and FreeBSD the serverpower. > > > > In keeping with the K.I.S.S principle, please let anyone needing new PF > > syntax just use OpenBSD. > > > > My humble opinion. > > -- > > Best regards, > > Odhiambo WASHINGTON, > > Nairobi,KE > > +254733744121/+254722743223 > > _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ > > I can't hear you -- I'm using the scrambler. > > _______________________________________________ > > freebsd-pf@freebsd.org mailing list > > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-pf > > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-pf-unsubscr...@freebsd.org" > > > > The truth is that you can add a shim layer between the old syntax to new > syntax and maintain the new 'locking' present in 10.x branch. > > Maybe it would be worth to send a project proposal to the FreeBSD > Foundation about this, > but i do not know how keen they are to support through funding this. > > When the locking was changed there were a discussion about keeping both of > the versions but it was just thrown to the trash by the guy doing > the new 'locking'. > > Probably it has to be asked to the foundation how keen they are to support > this development to have things upgraded. > > -- > Ermal > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-pf@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-pf > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-pf-unsubscr...@freebsd.org" > -- Sami Halabi Information Systems Engineer NMS Projects Expert FreeBSD SysAdmin Expert _______________________________________________ freebsd-pf@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-pf To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-pf-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
