From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jul 21 05:42:47 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3A75A486; Mon, 21 Jul 2014 05:42:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-oa0-x22d.google.com (mail-oa0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c02::22d]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D717926B9; Mon, 21 Jul 2014 05:42:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-oa0-f45.google.com with SMTP id i7so6765925oag.32 for ; Sun, 20 Jul 2014 22:42:46 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=yZxGbpBs6EKrl6Tqm2c8nk+uzlkB4SVIzksNuW0BuBw=; b=lpbETty60UourIjyN0+j51O/pQc09G7xBUzIPxdJ2y4Xz7F160AABc1T1g2nNjaWCn bcFUVKdL6muIe+OrvEaxC8665lDf8B30L1GTnJvLAG955mM6jvFkGKmeM4WVbM3m3DEa 82E1GwOcVx1mpYxq3qN4UjgbNBT1VTLMZhByA7rWKctMWMwB38P1ohuXFRBaXvT2lITh huThNJ6F2Bkb4sy1s6YJTGhJjQJlBo2pyg8DMwPnwDEfXGP8c3pqRMvQyUE7t3gybkAa aSCZTzF1ykdd6H2cRBczZMWfQwTMlCFQRgEgRxZBdWts8Z6zz5oV7OFhELRZZUW1vckw HMtA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.60.176.10 with SMTP id ce10mr33540987oec.8.1405921366137; Sun, 20 Jul 2014 22:42:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.76.170.39 with HTTP; Sun, 20 Jul 2014 22:42:46 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <53CC87D2.1000601@freebsd.org> References: <53C706C9.6090506@com.jkkn.dk> <20140718110645.GN87212@FreeBSD.org> <20140718151255.b3e677d9.gerrit.kuehn@aei.mpg.de> <53CA2D39.6000204@sasktel.net> <20140720123916.GV96250@e-new.0x20.net> <20140720134133.1d30f725@kan> <53CC87D2.1000601@freebsd.org> Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 07:42:46 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Future of pf / firewall in FreeBSD ? - does it have one ? From: Andreas Nilsson To: Julian Elischer Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.18 Cc: Maxim Khitrov , Current FreeBSD , FreeBSD Mailing List X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 05:42:47 -0000 On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 5:24 AM, Julian Elischer wrote: > On 7/21/14, 7:27 AM, Andreas Nilsson wrote: > >> On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 7:41 PM, Alexander Kabaev >> wrote: >> >> On Sun, 20 Jul 2014 10:15:36 -0400 >>> Maxim Khitrov wrote: >>> >>> On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 8:39 AM, Lars Engels >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 12:18:54PM +0100, krad wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> all of that is true, but you are missing the point. Having two >>>>>> versions of pf on the bsd's at the user level, is a bad thing. It >>>>>> confuses people, which puts them off. Its a classic case of divide >>>>>> an conquer for other platforms. I really like the idea of the >>>>>> openpf version, that has been mentioned in this thread. It would >>>>>> be awesome if it ended up as a supported linux thing as well, so >>>>>> the world could be rid of iptables. However i guess thats just an >>>>>> unrealistic dream >>>>>> >>>>> And you don't seem to get the point that _someone_ has to do the >>>>> work. No one has stepped up so far, so nothing is going to change. >>>>> >>>> Gleb believes that the majority of FreeBSD users don't want the >>>> updated syntax, among other changes, from the more recent pf versions. >>>> Developers who share his opinion are not going to volunteer to do the >>>> work. This discussion is about showing this belief to be wrong, which >>>> is the first step in the process. >>>> >>>> In my opinion, the way forward is to forget (at least temporarily) the >>>> SMP changes, bring pf in sync with OpenBSD, put a policy in place to >>>> follow their releases as closely as possible, and then try to >>>> reintroduce all the SMP work. I think the latter has to be done >>>> upstream, otherwise it'll always be a story of diverging codebases. >>>> Furthermore, if FreeBSD developers were willing to spend some time >>>> improving pf performance on OpenBSD, then Henning and other OpenBSD >>>> developers might be more receptive to changes that make the porting >>>> process easier. >>>> >>> I am one person whose opinion Gleb got completely right - I could not >>> care less about new syntax nor about how close or how far are we from >>> OpenBSD, as long as pf works for my purposes and it does. This far >>> into the thread and somebody has yet to provide a comprehensive list of >>> the benefits that we allegedly miss, or to come up with the real >>> benchmark result to substantiate the performance claims. >>> >>> Focusing on disproving anything Gleb might be believing in on the >>> matter, while an interesting undertaking, does nothing to give you new >>> pf you supposedly want. Doing the work and bringing it all the way to >>> will completeness for commit - does. >>> >>> It was stated repeatedly by multiple people that FreeBSD's network >>> stack is way too different from OpenBSD, we support features >>> OpenBSD doesn't and vice versa, vimage is a good example, which throws a >>> giant wrench into the plan of following OpenBSD 'as closely as >>> possible', even as the expense of throwing away all of the SMP work >>> done in pf to date. >>> >>> I like vimage, don't get me wrong, but it also seems to have lost >> traction. >> If vimage is the only thing holding a pf import back there ought to be >> some >> discussion about which is a priority. >> > As one involved with Vimage, I get feedback all the time that lets me know > it's in really heavy use in some pretty interesting commercial situations. > It HAS lst some traction in terms of added work, but that's because it's > solid enough for people to use. > In the situations where it's being used, it's a game changer and rhe > conversation goes something like: > > "hey vimage and pf don't work together.. guess that makes the firewall > decision easy.. use ipfw" > > Good to know! > >> Also, the openbsd stack has some essential features missing in freebsd, >> like mpls and md5 auth for bgp sessions. >> >> /A >> _______________________________________________ >> freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list >> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current >> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe@freebsd.org >> " >> >> >