Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 12:27:18 -0400 From: Bill Fumerola <billf@chimesnet.com> To: Miklos Niedermayer <mico@bsd.hu> Cc: Mike Hoskins <mike@adept.org>, Darren Reed <avalon@coombs.anu.edu.au>, Pavol Adamec <pavol_adamec@tempest.sk>, freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: ipf or ipfw (was: log with dynamic firewall rules) Message-ID: <20000730122718.P5021@jade.chc-chimes.com> In-Reply-To: <20000729194821.B1716@bsd.hu>; from mico@bsd.hu on Sat, Jul 29, 2000 at 07:48:21PM %2B0200 References: <200007270800.SAA23526@cairo.anu.edu.au> <Pine.BSF.4.21.0007271247130.58787-100000@snafu.adept.org> <20000729194821.B1716@bsd.hu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Jul 29, 2000 at 07:48:21PM +0200, Miklos Niedermayer wrote:
> > The only real reason I've heard ipf reccomended since ipfw got
> > keep-state/check-state is ipnat.
>
> I think that ipfw's statefullness is in a very early stage.
It's unusable for any server that makes connections with a lot
of clients (irc client server, www server, etc) but is useful
for a server that only makes a few connections (application,
irc hub server, etc..).
Why? Add 6000 rules to your ipfw-based firewall and see
what happens.
--
Bill Fumerola - Network Architect, BOFH / Chimes, Inc.
billf@chimesnet.com / billf@FreeBSD.org
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20000730122718.P5021>