Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2013 10:47:02 -0400 From: "Mike." <the.lists@mgm51.com> To: freebsd-pf@freebsd.org Subject: Re: PF bugs Message-ID: <201306221047020154.009AB04E@smtp.24cl.home> In-Reply-To: <1371872869.22524.75.camel@localhost> References: <1371865788.22524.9.camel@localhost> <CAJcQMWdAqO827TUmh6rRYQkPvuimXBBC4CcoGWf_Sc-x%2B7aT3A@mail.gmail.com> <1371872869.22524.75.camel@localhost>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 6/21/2013 at 10:47 PM Stan Gammons wrote: |On Fri, 2013-06-21 at 23:24 -0400, Maxim Khitrov wrote: |> For what it's worth, I've been gradually migrating the few firewalls |> that I maintain to OpenBSD. FreeBSD pf is fine, and it's what I use |> for protecting individual servers, but I find that the new syntax, |> which was introduced after OpenBSD 4.5, produces rulesets that are |> more compact and easier to maintain when it comes to routing traffic |> between networks. The new priority queuing (set prio) is much simpler |> than ALTQ (and should perform better, though I haven't tested this). |> I'm also looking forward to the work that's being done to free HFSC |> from ALTQ and make it understandable and usable by mere mortals. | |I too like OpenBSD and wish PF was in sync on both OS. | [snip] ============= While I suspect the core of pf on FreeBSD has diverged too much to keep the FreeBSD pf in sync with the OpenBSD pf [imo, and that's a shame], it would be most helpful if FreeBSD's pf.conf syntax and pf functionality were more closely aligned with what is currently happening with pf on OpenBSD. I run both OpenBSD and FreeBSD systems, and the pf differences are a drag.....
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201306221047020154.009AB04E>