From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Jul 20 12:39:23 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 391CFA7; Sun, 20 Jul 2014 12:39:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail.0x20.net (mail.0x20.net [217.69.76.211]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DCE1D205A; Sun, 20 Jul 2014 12:39:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from e-new.0x20.net (mail.0x20.net [IPv6:2001:aa8:fffb:1::3]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.0x20.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0B20A6A6004; Sun, 20 Jul 2014 14:39:19 +0200 (CEST) Received: from e-new.0x20.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by e-new.0x20.net (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id s6KCdIVR073823; Sun, 20 Jul 2014 14:39:18 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from lars@e-new.0x20.net) Received: (from lars@localhost) by e-new.0x20.net (8.14.7/8.14.7/Submit) id s6KCdGLL072493; Sun, 20 Jul 2014 14:39:16 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from lars) Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2014 14:39:16 +0200 From: Lars Engels To: krad Subject: Re: Future of pf / firewall in FreeBSD ? - does it have one ? Message-ID: <20140720123916.GV96250@e-new.0x20.net> Mail-Followup-To: Lars Engels , krad , Stephen Hurd , FreeBSD Mailing List , Gerrit =?utf-8?B?S8O8aG4=?= , freebsd-current@freebsd.org, Gleb Smirnoff , Matt Bettinger References: <53C706C9.6090506@com.jkkn.dk> <20140718110645.GN87212@FreeBSD.org> <20140718151255.b3e677d9.gerrit.kuehn@aei.mpg.de> <53CA2D39.6000204@sasktel.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="AMNVzrRY61gDOMe/" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Editor: VIM - Vi IMproved 7.4 X-Operation-System: FreeBSD 8.4-RELEASE-p4 User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 20 Jul 2014 15:21:43 +0000 Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org, Stephen Hurd , Gleb Smirnoff , Gerrit =?utf-8?B?S8O8aG4=?= , FreeBSD Mailing List , Matt Bettinger X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2014 12:39:23 -0000 --AMNVzrRY61gDOMe/ Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline 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. --AMNVzrRY61gDOMe/ Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (FreeBSD) iQF8BAEBCgBmBQJTy7h0XxSAAAAAAC4AKGlzc3Vlci1mcHJAbm90YXRpb25zLm9w ZW5wZ3AuZmlmdGhob3JzZW1hbi5uZXQ4RjQwMDE3RTRERjUzMTI1N0FGRTUxNDlF NTRDQjM3RDNBMDg5RDZEAAoJEOVMs306CJ1tcUAH/jgTS6/mNxC710EzLKEHGOfi qpAn3FG+f6MylvzE8/8LLf0mpbuGKxQYptaBlQoTjl0JCWdTIzmto/kWnWoyEtLP MmTtvDN3OfRv813KKgG83OpZ/4N39+zWCcco5Z/kCE9iF5AZPcVWHTxGsq6zBdFm nlKChzlYPSrSCaqldj2zRtf4N+JuOdoOYh3Mp9+CzdbmHtKOPq4/uwgyR0MfCQzK GpbatNbcXR5syjOMMzZVktOfbpNU3IjHFMCDo5IGy5ZB7gTBZdS7zALfMm0+34Vb EEyEFOx/1KbcSTbgKvdLf3JTYEeiFsb2lY8JL6XOH92IK/tWCGVpUK+4H2UgjIw= =xaNd -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --AMNVzrRY61gDOMe/--