Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 17:43:12 -0400 From: williamsl@home.com To: Rich Wales <richw@webcom.com> Cc: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re[2]: ipfilter v. ipfw Message-ID: <191180538689.20000821174312@home.com> In-Reply-To: <200008211669319.richw@wyattearp.stanford.edu> References: <200008211669319.richw@wyattearp.stanford.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
I have several machines which have both IP-Filter and IP-FireWall support compiled in and even using a mixture of both (bad form I know but I was lazy/tired when I was updating some rules) I've never had any stability issues with the boxes. --Ben Williams mailto:received@email dot com Quoting Rich Wales Monday, August 21, 2000 > 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 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?191180538689.20000821174312>