From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Jul 20 23:27:31 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4D717515; Sun, 20 Jul 2014 23:27:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-oa0-x236.google.com (mail-oa0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c02::236]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0316628A9; Sun, 20 Jul 2014 23:27:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-oa0-f54.google.com with SMTP id n16so6395493oag.13 for ; Sun, 20 Jul 2014 16:27:30 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=uYl+FsumPs9QUu1rP8bkpanu3czI3AK6HVC/roYC9AY=; b=QE8FIpFcNE47riSHr7hA3BH8ZeDf42Sldjp0k848j2o2gWUWAb+RrpYBKY2vc37ym5 vlPWTv/HiPaZOD6/lABnZgySZzaYlUCLtyTl152WobY+fc/2S9AeluZfa7Tzsqky7w+0 r8yZWA85T55YUB0gc0k2rBhWjLm8DN05x9J4r4THx1s3C+E2fl5Ch9tdtE0oVAJesz1w 0CT5kzi0lHMxh8f4mmf13x2gu5wJhX5beY0dXoqx0JvFN8aP24Tewywdw8vmnbsRTQ5g 71ibH63INX7/1iDUDQmPbMTsbDJdwqTZPqSeEvRJtQ0fOpq6LCYdU4XaGII6vOVKsyVw XKdQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.182.133.69 with SMTP id pa5mr32046504obb.2.1405898850177; Sun, 20 Jul 2014 16:27:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.76.170.39 with HTTP; Sun, 20 Jul 2014 16:27:30 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20140720134133.1d30f725@kan> References: <53C706C9.6090506@com.jkkn.dk> <20140718110645.GN87212@FreeBSD.org> <20140718151255.b3e677d9.gerrit.kuehn@aei.mpg.de> <53CA2D39.6000204@sasktel.net> <20140720123916.GV96250@e-new.0x20.net> <20140720134133.1d30f725@kan> Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 01:27:30 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Future of pf / firewall in FreeBSD ? - does it have one ? From: Andreas Nilsson To: Alexander Kabaev Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.18 Cc: Maxim Khitrov , Current FreeBSD , FreeBSD Mailing List X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2014 23:27:31 -0000 On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 7:41 PM, Alexander Kabaev wrote: > On Sun, 20 Jul 2014 10:15:36 -0400 > Maxim Khitrov wrote: > > > On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 8:39 AM, Lars Engels > > wrote: > > > On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 12:18:54PM +0100, krad wrote: > > >> all of that is true, but you are missing the point. Having two > > >> versions of pf on the bsd's at the user level, is a bad thing. It > > >> confuses people, which puts them off. Its a classic case of divide > > >> an conquer for other platforms. I really like the idea of the > > >> openpf version, that has been mentioned in this thread. It would > > >> be awesome if it ended up as a supported linux thing as well, so > > >> the world could be rid of iptables. However i guess thats just an > > >> unrealistic dream > > > > > > And you don't seem to get the point that _someone_ has to do the > > > work. No one has stepped up so far, so nothing is going to change. > > > > Gleb believes that the majority of FreeBSD users don't want the > > updated syntax, among other changes, from the more recent pf versions. > > Developers who share his opinion are not going to volunteer to do the > > work. This discussion is about showing this belief to be wrong, which > > is the first step in the process. > > > > In my opinion, the way forward is to forget (at least temporarily) the > > SMP changes, bring pf in sync with OpenBSD, put a policy in place to > > follow their releases as closely as possible, and then try to > > reintroduce all the SMP work. I think the latter has to be done > > upstream, otherwise it'll always be a story of diverging codebases. > > Furthermore, if FreeBSD developers were willing to spend some time > > improving pf performance on OpenBSD, then Henning and other OpenBSD > > developers might be more receptive to changes that make the porting > > process easier. > > I am one person whose opinion Gleb got completely right - I could not > care less about new syntax nor about how close or how far are we from > OpenBSD, as long as pf works for my purposes and it does. This far > into the thread and somebody has yet to provide a comprehensive list of > the benefits that we allegedly miss, or to come up with the real > benchmark result to substantiate the performance claims. > > Focusing on disproving anything Gleb might be believing in on the > matter, while an interesting undertaking, does nothing to give you new > pf you supposedly want. Doing the work and bringing it all the way to > will completeness for commit - does. > > It was stated repeatedly by multiple people that FreeBSD's network > stack is way too different from OpenBSD, we support features > OpenBSD doesn't and vice versa, vimage is a good example, which throws a > giant wrench into the plan of following OpenBSD 'as closely as > possible', even as the expense of throwing away all of the SMP work > done in pf to date. > I like vimage, don't get me wrong, but it also seems to have lost traction. If vimage is the only thing holding a pf import back there ought to be some discussion about which is a priority. Also, the openbsd stack has some essential features missing in freebsd, like mpls and md5 auth for bgp sessions. /A