From owner-freebsd-hackers Wed Aug 14 11:48:08 1996 Return-Path: owner-hackers Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id LAA19922 for hackers-outgoing; Wed, 14 Aug 1996 11:48:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from relay3.UU.NET (relay3.UU.NET [192.48.96.8]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id LAA19913 for ; Wed, 14 Aug 1996 11:48:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ugen-tr by relay3.UU.NET with SMTP (peer crosschecked as: ugen-tr.worldbank.org [138.220.101.58]) id QQbctn24916; Wed, 14 Aug 1996 14:48:05 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 14 Aug 96 14:40:03 From: "Ugen J.S.Antsilevich" Subject: WOW: ipfw vs ipfilter (part II) To: hackers@freebsd.org X-PRIORITY: 3 (Normal) X-Mailer: Chameleon 5.0.1, TCP/IP for Windows, NetManage Inc. Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk I missed the point i actually wanted to bring so probably all i wrote is not really understoodable without this: In the last year i received lots of problem reports about IPFW, of them most were because of misunderstanding of the command line interface. As i researched the topic (installed it and played for 10 minutes) i realised that the interface is obviously rather different then what i had in place and (per my statistics) all the problems reported to me were because only of this reason. ipfw itself is a rather primitive and straightforward ipfilter and hardly has place for bugs. What kind of set me off this time is that Jordan just tried to install it first time AFAIS, most certainly (and tell me if i am wrong) stumped upon misconfiguration (some keyword which acts differently than it has to or some undocumented stuff or what not) and because of this he actually says that ipfw is bad. To my defence i can say only - i am sure if you tell me what do you wan tto do and i use my original version it is a matter of 1-2 lines of config. I hope it clears the issue of fairy tales and such:) Thanx! --Ugen