Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 10:25:05 +0300 From: Ruslan Ermilov <ru@freebsd.org> To: Nick Rogness <nick@rogness.net> Cc: Evgeny Ivanov <evgeny@networkersbg.com> Subject: Re: tables in ipfw2 Message-ID: <20040624072505.GA63534@ip.net.ua> In-Reply-To: <20040624010726.H5174@skywalker.rogness.net> References: <200406240636.i5O6adNV000825@ns.networkersbg.com> <20040624064350.GA62743@ip.net.ua> <20040624010726.H5174@skywalker.rogness.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[-- Attachment #1 --] On Thu, Jun 24, 2004 at 01:09:14AM -0600, Nick Rogness wrote: > Is there any reason why IPFW2 has not become the standard > IPFW...still not stable enough or ??? IPFW2 is backwards > compatible with IPFW is it not? > It's standard in 5.x. Cheers, -- Ruslan Ermilov ru@FreeBSD.org FreeBSD committer [-- Attachment #2 --] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFA2oHRqRfpzJluFF4RAq4PAKCPM1kHWD5vFfsZg/cPVVGL3BzmTwCcCo24 J4oE+j8ysSVPV7JzGzUoRbY= =paLY -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040624072505.GA63534>