Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2006 11:05:29 -0500 (EST) From: Peter <petermatulis@yahoo.ca> To: Erik Norgaard <norgaard@locolomo.org> Cc: freebsd-questions <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: How to tell if IPF is running? Message-ID: <20060119160529.97832.qmail@web60017.mail.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <43CF5A52.2020100@locolomo.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--- Erik Norgaard <norgaard@locolomo.org> wrote: > Peter wrote: > > --- Erik Norgaard <norgaard@locolomo.org> wrote: > > > >> Gable Barber wrote: > >>> On 1/18/06, Peter <petermatulis@yahoo.ca> 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. > I need host based counting that distinguish up- and download. > And, I still don't know the easy solution to get the numbers out. > > Of course there is a point in PF, namely that there is just one ruleset > whereas in IPF filtering and accounting rules are separate. Use labels. I admit that accounting in pf can lead to a more messy ruleset. -- Peter __________________________________________________________ Find your next car at http://autos.yahoo.ca
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060119160529.97832.qmail>