Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2000 19:48:21 +0200 From: "Miklos Niedermayer" <mico@bsd.hu> To: Mike Hoskins <mike@adept.org> Cc: Darren Reed <avalon@coombs.anu.edu.au>, Pavol Adamec <pavol_adamec@tempest.sk>, freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: ipf or ipfw (was: log with dynamic firewall rules) Message-ID: <20000729194821.B1716@bsd.hu> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0007271247130.58787-100000@snafu.adept.org>; from mike@adept.org on Thu, Jul 27, 2000 at 12:49:58PM -0700 References: <200007270800.SAA23526@cairo.anu.edu.au> <Pine.BSF.4.21.0007271247130.58787-100000@snafu.adept.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hell, Mike Hoskins: > The only real reason I've heard ipf reccomended since ipfw got > keep-state/check-state is ipnat. I think that ipfw's statefullness is in a very early stage. -- ______ o _. __ / / / (_(_(__(_) @ bsd.hu To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20000729194821.B1716>