From owner-freebsd-current@freebsd.org  Fri Nov 27 11:22:59 2020
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1])
 by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28BFE4A53B5
 for <freebsd-current@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org>;
 Fri, 27 Nov 2020 11:22:59 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kp@FreeBSD.org)
Received: from smtp.freebsd.org (smtp.freebsd.org [96.47.72.83])
 (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
 key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256
 client-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-digest SHA256)
 (Client CN "smtp.freebsd.org",
 Issuer "Let's Encrypt Authority X3" (verified OK))
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4CjC0g0jvGz3CMc;
 Fri, 27 Nov 2020 11:22:59 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kp@FreeBSD.org)
Received: from venus.codepro.be (venus.codepro.be [5.9.86.228])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
 (Client CN "mx1.codepro.be", Issuer "Let's Encrypt Authority X3" (verified OK))
 (Authenticated sender: kp)
 by smtp.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E62E82BC48;
 Fri, 27 Nov 2020 11:22:58 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kp@FreeBSD.org)
Received: by venus.codepro.be (Postfix, authenticated sender kp) id A96E71E64B;
 Fri, 27 Nov 2020 12:22:57 +0100 (CET)
From: "Kristof Provost" <kp@FreeBSD.org>
To: tech-lists <tech-lists@zyxst.net>
Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: firewall choice
Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2020 12:22:56 +0100
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.13.2r5673)
Message-ID: <5CEA59B9-7D14-42E6-B2B4-DFCF656F02A9@FreeBSD.org>
In-Reply-To: <X8C43AprLKhr3xxy@rpi4.local>
References: <X8C43AprLKhr3xxy@rpi4.local>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed; markup=markdown
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current
 <freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-current>, 
 <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>, 
 <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2020 11:22:59 -0000

On 27 Nov 2020, at 9:29, tech-lists wrote:
> What's the "best" [1] choice for firewalling these days, in the list's 
> opinion?
>
> There's pf, ipf and ipfw. Which is the one being most recently 
> developed/updated?
> I'm used to using pf, have done for over a decade. But OpenBSD's pf 
> has diverged a lot more from when it first came across. There seems to 
> be a lot more options.
> Is FreeBSD's pf being actively developed still?
>
All three are actively maintained and grow new features from time to 
time.

> [1] up-to-date
See above. All three are actively maintained.

> low overhead, high throughput
I believe ipfw currently performs best. I can’t rank ipf and pf, 
because I’ve not seen benchmarks for ipf.

> IPv6-able,
All three.

> traffic shaping/queueing
Mostly ipfw, because dummynet. pf has ALTQ, but that has more 
limitations than dummynet.
I think ipf doesn’t do shaping, but I may be mistaken about that.

Best regards,
Kristof