Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Thu, 4 Jan 2007 16:37:28 -0800
From:      "Atom Powers" <atom.powers@gmail.com>
To:        Eric <heli@mikestammer.com>
Cc:        Brett Davidson <brett@net24.co.nz>, questions@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: Advice on which FreeBSD firewall package to choose.
Message-ID:  <df9ac37c0701041637i7c521a92g29732caaa4f3f078@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <459D76E6.2030904@mikestammer.com>
References:  <60224D09909C0B43A50935A0893D8FF31DA2DC@srv.exchange.net24.net.nz> <459D76E6.2030904@mikestammer.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 1/4/07, Eric <heli@mikestammer.com> wrote:
> Brett Davidson wrote:
> > Before I start, I'm familiar with IPTables from Linux but am wanting to
> > use FreeBSD as a firewalling router after seeing it in action on a
> > heavily-loaded webserver. I like the efficiency of the TCP stack.
> >
> > Upon reading the handbook I found that I can have my choice of three
> > firewalls; pf, iptables and ipfw.
> >
...
> >
> > Against prudence, they wish to allow torrent connections to the inside
> > lan and ICQ connections to both the Inside LAN and the Wireless DMZ. The
> > torrent and ICQ connections will need to be bandwidth-managed so that is
> > a major consideration for the choice of which firewall to use. Is there
> > an equivalent to HTB on FreeBSD?
> >
> >
> i believe pf is the most modern and cleanest/easiest syntax to use. it
> is actively developed and lots of people use it. You can set up priority
> on bandwidth in pf as well, so it should meet all your requirements nicely.

pf will also do the bandwidth management you want. I've used ipfw,
ipf, iptables, and pf; pf is by far the most powerful and easy to use.

-- 
--
Perfection is just a word I use occasionally with mustard.
--Atom Powers--



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?df9ac37c0701041637i7c521a92g29732caaa4f3f078>