As stated elsewhere in this thread, there's an PF giant-lock.
On Tue 05 Mar 2013 06:40 PM, Brett Glass wrote:
> This brings up a question I hadn't thought to ask before. How SMP-friendly is
> the current implementation of IPFW? I will be building some routers/firewalls
> that will require high per
This brings up a question I hadn't thought to ask before. How SMP-friendly is
the current implementation of IPFW? I will be building some routers/firewalls
that will require high performance, and do not want to run into a
situation where
the firewall is single-threaded (or giant-locked) and beco
On Mon, 04 Mar 2013 16:34:58 -0600, Koornstra, Reinoud
wrote:
Hi Mark,
Why not consider NPF from NetBSD where SMP friendly firewalling is a
given.
I've actually been toying with the idea of reinstalling my firewall with
NetBSD so I can try NPF. I just hate debugging firewall rules that
, March 04, 2013 6:13 AM
To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org; Robert Simmons
Subject: Re: Firewall Options
On Sun, 03 Mar 2013 17:12:18 -0600, Robert Simmons
wrote:
> Are there plans to update ipfilter or pf to current versions?
> ipfilter is currently at 5.1.2, but the version in FreeBSD is 4.1
On Sun, 03 Mar 2013 17:12:18 -0600, Robert Simmons
wrote:
Are there plans to update ipfilter or pf to current versions?
ipfilter is currently at 5.1.2, but the version in FreeBSD is 4.1.28
from 2007.
On the pf side, the version in FreeBSD is 4.5, but the current version
I would understand to
Are there plans to update ipfilter or pf to current versions?
ipfilter is currently at 5.1.2, but the version in FreeBSD is 4.1.28
from 2007.
On the pf side, the version in FreeBSD is 4.5, but the current version
I would understand to be 5.2. The version in FreeBSD is pre-4.7, so
much of the synt
