From owner-freebsd-small  Tue Apr 24 12:43:44 2001
Delivered-To: freebsd-small@freebsd.org
Received: from info.iet.unipi.it (info.iet.unipi.it [131.114.9.184])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1F0B37B422
	for <freebsd-small@FreeBSD.ORG>; Tue, 24 Apr 2001 12:43:40 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from luigi@info.iet.unipi.it)
Received: (from luigi@localhost)
	by info.iet.unipi.it (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA34133;
	Tue, 24 Apr 2001 21:41:52 +0200 (CEST)
	(envelope-from luigi)
From: Luigi Rizzo <luigi@info.iet.unipi.it>
Message-Id: <200104241941.VAA34133@info.iet.unipi.it>
Subject: Re: ipfw vs. ipf (was: Re: PicoBSD's kernel, /dev/kmem, and the kernfs
In-Reply-To: <3AE5CDFE.9900D18B@aurora.regenstrief.org> from Gunther Schadow
 at "Apr 24, 2001 07:03:26 pm"
To: Gunther Schadow <gunther@aurora.regenstrief.org>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 21:41:51 +0200 (CEST)
Cc: freebsd-small@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL61 (25)]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-freebsd-small@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

> - ipf is more likely to play well with IPsec

can you be more specific on this one ?

	cheers
	luigi

To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-small" in the body of the message