Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sat, 2 Jun 2007 22:42:28 +0200
From:      Max Laier <max@love2party.net>
To:        Michal Mertl <mime@traveller.cz>
Cc:        freebsd-current@freebsd.org, freebsd-pf@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: pf(4) status in 7.0-R
Message-ID:  <200706022242.37207.max@love2party.net>
In-Reply-To: <1180766346.30151.3.camel@genius.i.cz>
References:  <20070601103549.GA22490@localhost.localdomain> <200706011717.54698.max@love2party.net> <1180766346.30151.3.camel@genius.i.cz>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--nextPart13748422.R2svJu85Op
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-6"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

On Saturday 02 June 2007, Michal Mertl wrote:
> Max Laier wrote:
> > [ moving this to the more specific list ]
> >
> > On Friday 01 June 2007, LI Xin wrote:
> > > Stanislaw Halik wrote:
> > > > Heya,
> > > >
> > > > Are there any plans to sync pf(4) before 7.0-R? OpenBSD has some
> > > > neat stuff in it, including expiretable functionality, which
> > > > would come in handy.
> > >
> > > Last time I have talked with Max (Cc'ed) about the issue, we
> > > finally figured out that porting the whole stuff would need some
> > > infrastructural changes to our routing code, which could be risky
> > > so we wanted to avoid it at this stage (about 15 days before
> > > RELENG_7 code freeze).  On the other hand, some functionality (like
> > > the expiretable feature) does not seem to touch a large part of
> > > kernel and might be appropriate
> > > RELENG_7(_0) candidate.
> > >
> > > Could you please enumerate some features that FreeBSD is currently
> > > lack of and are considered "high priority" so we will be able to
> > > evaluate whether to port?
> > >
> > > BTW.  Patches are always welcome, as usual :-)  So don't hesitate
> > > to submit if you already did some work.
> >
> > ditto.  I'd like to import a couple of features on a per-feature base
> > rather than doing a complete import which isn't possible anymore due
> > to SMP and routing code changes.
> >
> > Submit your list of features and I'll see what I can do this weekend.
> >  My list includes:
> >
> > - keep state and flags S/SA to default
> > - improved state table purgeing (this is internal, but a huge
> > benefit) - interface handling (groups etc.)
> > - pfsync / pflog update (not 100% sure about these due to libpcap /
> > tcpdump dependency)
> >
> > While at it, I might also introduce needed ABI breakage for netgraph
> > interaction.
> >
> > Anything else?
>
> The updated ftp-proxy - the one in the tree does not rewrite source IP
> address of data connections and some firewalls (e.g. Windows Firewall)
> don't let the connection through. It should be pretty easy to import -
> the program it already in some form in the ports tree.

How do people feel about removing ftp-proxy from the base altogether?  I=20
think it's better off in ports anyway.  Opinions?

=2D-=20
/"\  Best regards,                      | mlaier@freebsd.org
\ /  Max Laier                          | ICQ #67774661
 X   http://pf4freebsd.love2party.net/  | mlaier@EFnet
/ \  ASCII Ribbon Campaign              | Against HTML Mail and News

--nextPart13748422.R2svJu85Op
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.3 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQBGYdY9XyyEoT62BG0RAgciAJ0bB5tH0BO4gqlVM48gqoLde0U2HQCeLE8w
eI/K30KEEvnjBIpCFL/NPGA=
=1ebt
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--nextPart13748422.R2svJu85Op--



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200706022242.37207.max>