From owner-freebsd-stable Mon Aug 21 9:39: 3 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from wyattearp.stanford.edu (wyattearp.Stanford.EDU [171.66.63.23]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2142F37B43E for ; Mon, 21 Aug 2000 09:39:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from richw@localhost) by wyattearp.stanford.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA70746; Mon, 21 Aug 2000 09:38:22 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from richw) Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 09:38:22 -0700 (PDT) From: Rich Wales X-Sender: richw@wyattearp.stanford.edu To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ipfilter v. ipfw Message-ID: <200008211669319.richw@wyattearp.stanford.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG My earlier question seems to have been lost amidst the debate about ipfilter vs. ipfw, so please forgive my restating it. I have a kernel (4.1-RELEASE) with both IPFIREWALL and IPFILTER support enabled. However, I am currently using only "ipfw" commands to set up my firewall; I'm not using any "ipf" commands at all. Is there any reason to expect a system configured in this way will be inherently unstable, simply because both firewall schemes have been included in the kernel, even though only one of them is being used? Perhaps I'll end up taking out the IPFILTER kernel support, just on principle, but I feel the question is still worth asking. Rich Wales richw@webcom.com http://www.webcom.com/richw/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message