From owner-freebsd-net  Tue May  1 17:43:15 2001
Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
Received: from coconut.itojun.org (coconut.itojun.org [210.160.95.97])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44DEB37B423
	for <freebsd-net@freebsd.org>; Tue,  1 May 2001 17:43:12 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from itojun@itojun.org)
Received: from itojun.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by coconut.itojun.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 0E9E54B0B; Wed,  2 May 2001 09:43:11 +0900 (JST)
To: snap-users@kame.net
Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org, ipfilter@coombs.anu.edu.au,
	altq@csl.sony.co.jp
In-reply-to: gunther's message of Tue, 01 May 2001 17:45:17 GMT.
      <3AEEF62D.8E5D74D8@aurora.regenstrief.org> 
X-Template-Reply-To: itojun@itojun.org
X-Template-Return-Receipt-To: itojun@itojun.org
X-PGP-Fingerprint: F8 24 B4 2C 8C 98 57 FD  90 5F B4 60 79 54 16 E2
Subject: Re: (KAME-snap 4591) Re: [altq 806] The future of ALTQ, IPsec & IPFILTER playing together ... 
From: itojun@iijlab.net
Date: Wed, 02 May 2001 09:43:11 +0900
Message-ID: <5379.988764191@itojun.org>
Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org

>Yes, this makes your lives very difficult, I understand. However,
>I also understand that you kind of prefer working with IPFILTER
>because IPFILTER is available for all *BSDs regardless of what
>other filtering stuff is also available for those. Therefore, I
>have migrated to IPFILTER and I have encouraged others to do the
>same so that you guys can concentrate on IPFILTER and don't have
>to bother with IPFW etc.

	i (or we) have never picked a single preferred filtering code for us,
	i guess.

itojun

To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message