From owner-freebsd-hackers Wed Oct 25 19: 2:14 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mass.osd.bsdi.com (mass.osd.bsdi.com [204.216.28.234]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7BC437B479 for ; Wed, 25 Oct 2000 19:02:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mass.osd.bsdi.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mass.osd.bsdi.com (8.11.0/8.9.3) with ESMTP id e9Q26Eh00591; Wed, 25 Oct 2000 19:06:14 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from msmith@mass.osd.bsdi.com) Message-Id: <200010260206.e9Q26Eh00591@mass.osd.bsdi.com> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.1.1 10/15/1999 To: "Michelle R. Sanchez, CNE" Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: question for the freebsd community In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 25 Oct 2000 10:20:23 PDT." <39F71657.8855C56D@polyserve.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 19:06:14 -0700 From: Mike Smith Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > we have had a lot of requests from customers wishing to make their > firewalls highly available by clustering them together and putting a > service monitor on the firewall port in case the firewall daemon should > hang. this is probably not very likely but they would like to be able to > do so in any case. Just so that it's clear; in the FreeBSD context there's no "firewall daemon" so there's nothing to hang. If you're talking about the NAT daemon, then yes, adding monitoring to it would be a good idea. -- ... every activity meets with opposition, everyone who acts has his rivals and unfortunately opponents also. But not because people want to be opponents, rather because the tasks and relationships force people to take different points of view. [Dr. Fritz Todt] V I C T O R Y N O T V E N G E A N C E To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message