Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 09:46:57 -0600 (MDT) From: Nick Rogness <nick@rogness.net> To: Ruslan Ermilov <ru@freebsd.org> Cc: Evgeny Ivanov <evgeny@networkersbg.com> Subject: Re: tables in ipfw2 Message-ID: <20040624094625.I10310@skywalker.rogness.net> In-Reply-To: <20040624072505.GA63534@ip.net.ua> References: <200406240636.i5O6adNV000825@ns.networkersbg.com> <20040624010726.H5174@skywalker.rogness.net> <20040624072505.GA63534@ip.net.ua>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004, Ruslan Ermilov wrote: > On Thu, Jun 24, 2004 at 01:09:14AM -0600, Nick Rogness wrote: >> Is there any reason why IPFW2 has not become the standard >> IPFW...still not stable enough or ??? IPFW2 is backwards >> compatible with IPFW is it not? >> > It's standard in 5.x. Sorry, I was referring to the 4.10 RELEASE and 4-STABLE. Nick Rogness <nick@rogness.net> - How many people here have telekenetic powers? Raise my hand. -Emo Philips
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040624094625.I10310>