From owner-freebsd-questions Fri Oct 12 10:14:21 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from po3.wam.umd.edu (po3.wam.umd.edu [128.8.10.165]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D95537B417; Fri, 12 Oct 2001 10:14:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sun10pg2.wam.umd.edu (IDENT:root@sun10pg2.wam.umd.edu [128.8.73.20]) by po3.wam.umd.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA07382; Fri, 12 Oct 2001 13:13:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sun10pg2.wam.umd.edu (IDENT:sendmail@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun10pg2.wam.umd.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id NAA27763; Fri, 12 Oct 2001 13:13:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (culverk@localhost) by sun10pg2.wam.umd.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA27759; Fri, 12 Oct 2001 13:13:47 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun10pg2.wam.umd.edu: culverk owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 13:13:47 -0400 (EDT) From: Kenneth Wayne Culver To: Henrik Holmstam Cc: Alfatrion , "Maine LOA List Admin (Brent Bailey)" , "Hartmann, O." , freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: IPFW or IPFILTER? In-Reply-To: <20011012185458.K69352-100000@darkwing.turbo.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG I don't know, I couldn't get it to do that, which is one of the main reasons I switched to ipfilter :-D Ken On Fri, 12 Oct 2001, Henrik Holmstam wrote: > > Can IPFW keep state on UDP and ICMP as IPFilter can? > > > On Fri, 12 Oct 2001, Kenneth Wayne Culver wrote: > > > On Fri, 12 Oct 2001, Alfatrion wrote: > > > > > Maine LOA List Admin (Brent Bailey) wrote: > > > > > > > I tried IPFILTER for awhile ...and it very easy to use...but ..in my opinion > > > > it isnt as configurable as IPFW. > > > > IPFW is a little more to setup ...but still pretty easy ...and the syntax > > > > isnt that hard to understand. Its best feature is its VERY > > > > configurable...and as long as you keep logging to a minimum ...it doesnt use > > > > alot of resources. > > > > Seems its memeory intensive than anything ...running a firewall that is > > > > > > > > > > I find IPF more configurable as IPFW. I don't know how to do the > > > folowing in IPFW: pass out quick on tun0 proto tcp from any to any keep > > > state. > > > > > IPFW has state keeping, but I don't think it's anywhere as easy to get it > > working right. > > > > Ken > > > > > Alex > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > > > with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message > > > > > > > > > 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-questions" in the body of the message