From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jan 19 00:14:48 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E53B216A429 for ; Thu, 19 Jan 2006 00:14:48 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from petermatulis@yahoo.ca) Received: from web60014.mail.yahoo.com (web60014.mail.yahoo.com [209.73.178.77]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 58CAC43D48 for ; Thu, 19 Jan 2006 00:14:48 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from petermatulis@yahoo.ca) Received: (qmail 31043 invoked by uid 60001); 19 Jan 2006 00:14:47 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.ca; h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=uEHMj29ylwedAIG7nYQonP9hLjCaOMG1wMYIPt2N0sXInDZzyWgcU+EDjozrrqn9MOxVgrlwZs8iD9Sab2UFhBqsCCo3/5lakTWTm6wMbBXDySVBkQOhUgiQJaKWWxNjjhpm6MLsM09/4DfyBiGcvoIaSHVEZWw233ghceF4oJM= ; Message-ID: <20060119001447.31041.qmail@web60014.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [216.252.85.69] by web60014.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Wed, 18 Jan 2006 19:14:47 EST Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2006 19:14:47 -0500 (EST) From: Peter To: freebsd-questions In-Reply-To: <43CE6C7C.2040307@locolomo.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: How to tell if IPF is running? X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2006 00:14:49 -0000 --- Erik Norgaard wrote: > Gable Barber wrote: > > On 1/18/06, Peter wrote: > >> > >> Switch over to pf. > >> > > Why do you suggest PF over IPF? > > > > Hope I am not starting a war here.. but I am genuinely interested in > the > > opinions. > > I used IPF on FBSD until there was some bug in IPF for 5.x some version > that forced me to switch after an upgrade. The bug has been fixed since > but I have found no reason to go back. > > There are two things I miss from IPF: > > a) proper accounting: You can't count traffic correctly with stateful > filtering on pf, pf will count when a rule is matched but once a state > is established packets for that state are not matched and hence not > counted. That's not true. __________________________________________________________ Find your next car at http://autos.yahoo.ca