Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2015 14:28:51 -0700 (MST) From: Warren Block <wblock@wonkity.com> To: Lowell Gilbert <freebsd-lists@be-well.ilk.org> Cc: "freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org" <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>, Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: [FreeBSD 11 Wishlist] Replacing an OpenBSD Firewall Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.11.1501021426480.71359@wonkity.com> In-Reply-To: <44387tcay2.fsf@be-well.ilk.org> References: <1419995051.3716640.208176841.1676669A@webmail.messagingengine.com> <1420213273.622796.208841861.04300699@webmail.messagingengine.com> <CAJ-VmokPepw8K7Cu1-z5YVRCETKPf28VXhGx8u2cD-23TAMnFA@mail.gmail.com> <44387tcay2.fsf@be-well.ilk.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 2 Jan 2015, Lowell Gilbert wrote: > Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org> writes: > >> On 2 January 2015 at 07:41, Mark Felder <feld@freebsd.org> wrote: >>> I've been encouraged to use ipfw and dummynet, but converting my >>> firewall rules again is not something I'm enthusiastic about. I'll note >>> that FreeBSD is often praised for including pf while ipfw is completely >>> overlooked; our own Handbook even puts pf before ipfw. That certainly >>> sends a message that we may not be intending to send and should be >>> considered carefully. >> >> Well, I bet the handbook updates were written by a pf-loving person. :) > > I just took a quick look at that Handbook chapter (for the first time in > quite a few years), and I didn't notice anything I'd consider a > problem. All three firewalls are mentioned and (*very* lightly) compared > in the Synopsis that begins the chapter. pf does come before ipfw, but > *something* has to come first; it's not like anyone would go for a > suggestion like periodically re-ordering the sections... Before the reorganization, I think ipf was first. (And we were so close to losing it altogether...)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?alpine.BSF.2.11.1501021426480.71359>