Re: IPFW and PF

2006-10-31 Thread Andrew Pantyukhin
On 10/30/06, Andy Greenwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 10/30/06, Lowell Gilbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "Andy Greenwood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> top-posted: > > > On 10/28/06, David Schulz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Hi all, > >> > >> IPFW seems to be the same IPFW that is used on MacOSX,

Re: IPFW and PF

2006-10-30 Thread Andy Greenwood
On 10/30/06, Lowell Gilbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: "Andy Greenwood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> top-posted: > On 10/28/06, David Schulz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> IPFW seems to be the same IPFW that is used on MacOSX, so it seems to >> make sense to learn and lean on IPFW when using

Re: IPFW and PF

2006-10-30 Thread Lowell Gilbert
"Andy Greenwood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> top-posted: > On 10/28/06, David Schulz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> IPFW seems to be the same IPFW that is used on MacOSX, so it seems to >> make sense to learn and lean on IPFW when using in a mixed Machine >> Environment. On the other side, ma

Re: IPFW and PF

2006-10-30 Thread Andy Greenwood
PF, for two reasons. Firstly, because I don't have to mess with arbitrary rule numbers; I can just scroll down the page and know that rules will be executed in that order. Secondly becuase I can easily integrate bruteforceblocker. On 10/28/06, David Schulz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hi all, IPF

IPFW and PF

2006-10-28 Thread David Schulz
Hi all, IPFW seems to be the same IPFW that is used on MacOSX, so it seems to make sense to learn and lean on IPFW when using in a mixed Machine Environment. On the other side, many People seem to say PF is easier to manage once a setup gets complicated. As usual, both sides have their ow