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 Nov 20, 2012, at 7:46 AM, Odhiambo Washington wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 5:23 AM, 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
On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 8:50 AM, Ian FREISLICH wrote:
> > > Today its a null op. So it voids the keyword which should be
> deprecated in
> > > FreeBSD or should be reintroduced!
> > > Also it may break people assumptions on it.
> >
> > So I take it that "set state-policy if-bound" will no longer
> > Today its a null op. So it voids the keyword which should be deprecated in
> > FreeBSD or should be reintroduced!
> > Also it may break people assumptions on it.
>
> So I take it that "set state-policy if-bound" will no longer have any
> effect either? Is this expected to hit 10.0-RELEASE?
>
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 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
> > > issues with the new pf-smp work done by gleb.
> > >
> > Not reall
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
> > > issues with the new pf-smp work done by gleb.
> > >
> > Not reall
=?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
> > issues with the new pf-smp work done by gleb.
> >
> Not really since Gleb just changed the locking and nothing else.
> All his wo
How about renaming freebsd pf to something else, like fpf or pff for
instance ?
--
Best regards,
Adrian Minta
___
freebsd-pf@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-pf
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-pf-un
On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 3:52 PM, Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 03:44:13PM +0100, Ermal Lu?i wrote:
> E> Cherry-picking would be when tehre is reasonable similarities.
> E> Also another argument to do this would be simplicity on locking as well
> as
> E> i told you when you starte
On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 03:44:13PM +0100, Ermal Lu?i wrote:
E> Cherry-picking would be when tehre is reasonable similarities.
E> Also another argument to do this would be simplicity on locking as well as
E> i told you when you started the changes.
You were wrong. OpenBSD doesn't move towards SMP m
On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 8:56 AM, Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
> Mark,
>
> On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 03:43:17PM +0100, Mark Martinec wrote:
> M> For one thing, I'm desperately awaiting NAT64 support (the 'af-to'
> M> translation rule in newer pf (5.1?), committed on 2011-10).
>
> Backport this exact featu
Mark,
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 03:43:17PM +0100, Mark Martinec wrote:
M> For one thing, I'm desperately awaiting NAT64 support (the 'af-to'
M> translation rule in newer pf (5.1?), committed on 2011-10).
Backport this exact feature to FreeBSD and send patch.
M> Other: packet normalization (scrub
On Nov 20, 2012 9:44 AM, "Mark Martinec"
wrote:
>
> Paul Webster wrote:
> > I am aware this is a much discussed subject since the upgrade of PF,
> > I believe the final decision was that too many users are used to the old
> > style pf and an upgrade to the new syntax would cause too much
confusion
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 9:07 AM, Sami Halabi wrote:
> Hi,
> This was actually discussed much before, as I read it would make some
> issues with the new pf-smp work done by gleb.
>
>
Not really since Gleb just changed the locking and nothing else.
All his work is under the hood.
He actually broke
Paul Webster wrote:
> I am aware this is a much discussed subject since the upgrade of PF,
> I believe the final decision was that too many users are used to the old
> style pf and an upgrade to the new syntax would cause too much confusion.
I don't buy that. Think of a confusion in a year of two
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 wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 7:46 AM, Odhiambo Washington >wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 5:23 AM, Paul Webster <
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 7:46 AM, Odhiambo Washington 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 man
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 5:23 AM, 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.
>
> Th
On 2012-Nov-20 02:23:07 -, Paul Webster
wrote:
>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.
FreeBSD deprecation policies
Just out of interest, option 3) does not entirely dismiss using the pf2-*
chain of kernel options for developing using the new pf tree; sure it
would be alot of work but just 'how much' would be required; Our own fork
after all means that everything is created from scratch and as its 'vastly
I am not so sure there would be much more maintenance, after all after the
split the only updates to the original 'pf-*' tree would be any serious
security or stability updates that happen to crop up.
All feature updates etc would be to the pf2-*
On Tue, 20 Nov 2012 02:52:53 -, Maxim Khi
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
23 matches
Mail list logo
