On Sun, Dec 7, 2014 at 9:22 PM, Jim Thompson wrote:
> OpenBSD may eventually grow proper multicore support, but that is of little
> concern to the FreeBSD project. It took FreeBSD years to get proper
> multicore support, and I doubt
> OpenBSD gets there any faster. Nor have they started. This
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 9:49 PM, Stan Gammons wrote:
> I see there are several PF bugs and wondered if it's because PF isn't
> maintained on FreeBSD? Perhaps that's the case given the version
> differences versus PF on OpenBSD. If not, is Ipfilter the "preferred"
> firewall on FreeBSD? Or is IPF
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 10:00 AM, Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
> Paul,
>
> On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 02:11:32PM -, Paul Webster wrote:
> P> I only really need one question answered in honesty;
> P>
> P> I personally think that by forking our own version of PF we have
> P> essentially made something to
On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 10:00 AM, Ermal Luçi wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 3:13 PM, Ian FREISLICH wrote:
>
>> =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Ermal_Lu=E7i?= wrote:
>> > On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 9:07 AM, Sami Halabi wrote:
>> > > This was actually discussed much before, as I read it would make some
>> > > issue
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 9:23 PM, Paul Webster
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.
>
> The
Hello all,
The "require-order" option has the following ominous warning:
"There may be non-trivial and non-obvious implications to an out of
order ruleset. Consider carefully before disabling the order
enforcement."
In OpenBSD 4.6 this directive was changed to 'no' by default, and it
was taken o
On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 3:17 AM, Damien Fleuriot wrote:
> On 20 Feb 2011, at 23:16, Maxim Khitrov wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Feb 20, 2011 at 4:16 PM, jhell wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 13:27, eirnym@ wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 20 February 2011 06:5
On Sun, Feb 20, 2011 at 4:16 PM, jhell wrote:
>
> On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 13:27, eirnym@ wrote:
>>
>> On 20 February 2011 06:50, jhell wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 03:26, eirnym@ wrote:
I heard while ago about packet filter update coming, but there're no
news about. Which status
Hello all,
I'm configuring pf on FreeBSD 7.3 and would like to use the following
altq settings:
altq on $ext priq bandwidth 9240Kb queue {low, red, med, top}
altq on {$int1, $int2, $srv} priq bandwidth 100Mb queue {low, red, med, top}
queue low priority 1 priq(default) # Default priority queue
On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 5:17 PM, Michal wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'm using pf on FreeBSD 8.0-RC1. My wlan0-ath0 card is set up via
> wpa_supplicant.conf and rc.conf (ifconfig_wlan0="WPA DHCP"). pf also starts
> via rc.conf
>
> Problem is that pf cannot start during the system boot because it tries to
>
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 3:26 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
> Gert Doering wrote:
>> Hi Doug,
>>
>> thanks for taking this up - and sorry for not responding more timely.
>>
>> I can't answer all the questions but might have a yet-unmentioned idea
>> that could solve all this in one go :-)
>>
>> On Mon, Ju
Hello all,
I would like to verify my assumptions regarding the way uRPF check
works. I'm using a Soekris net5501 board as a firewall; port 0
($ext_if) is internet uplink, ports 1-3 ($int_if, $mil_if, $vpn_if)
are separate lan segments that should not be communicating with one
another. Here is the
Hello all,
A quick question regarding the behavior of FreeBSD and pf when you
have multiple local interfaces. In my case, I have a Soekris net5501
board with one interface being the uplink to ISP and the other three
dedicated to separate networks. There should be no traffic passing
from one networ
13 matches
Mail list logo
