Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 09:51:36 -0500 From: Lowell Gilbert <freebsd-questions-local@be-well.ilk.org> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: IPFW and PF Message-ID: <448xixrh53.fsf@be-well.ilk.org> In-Reply-To: <3ee9ca710610300524y7db3dc1bg56e144b452d90dc@mail.gmail.com> (Andy Greenwood's message of "Mon, 30 Oct 2006 08:24:18 -0500") References: <E4B019F7-1067-45C3-AF93-CF0980A57471@tca-cable-connector.com> <3ee9ca710610300524y7db3dc1bg56e144b452d90dc@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
"Andy Greenwood" <greenwood.andy@gmail.com> top-posted: > On 10/28/06, David Schulz <davidschulz@tca-cable-connector.com> wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> IPFW seems to be the same IPFW that is used on MacOSX, so it seems to >> make sense to learn and lean on IPFW when using in a mixed Machine >> Environment. On the other side, many People seem to say PF is easier >> to manage once a setup gets complicated. As usual, both sides have >> their own valid points. My question though is not whether any of the >> two , IPFW of PF is better then the other, but which of the two do >> you use, and why? >> > PF, for two reasons. Firstly, because I don't have to mess with > arbitrary rule numbers; I can just scroll down the page and know that > rules will be executed in that order. Secondly becuase I can easily > integrate bruteforceblocker. Wow. I can see some advantages either way, but I can't see any differences on those grounds. After all, rule numbers *aren't* required in ipfw (even the example script doesn't use them). And bruteblock works with ipfw in *very* much the same way that bruteforceblock does with pf.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?448xixrh53.fsf>