From owner-freebsd-hackers Wed Aug 14 16:02:44 1996 Return-Path: owner-hackers Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id QAA01990 for hackers-outgoing; Wed, 14 Aug 1996 16:02:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from panda.hilink.com.au (panda.hilink.com.au [203.2.144.5]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id QAA01978 for ; Wed, 14 Aug 1996 16:02:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from danny@localhost) by panda.hilink.com.au (8.7.5/8.7.3) id JAA06607; Thu, 15 Aug 1996 09:02:34 +1000 (EST) Date: Thu, 15 Aug 1996 09:02:33 +1000 (EST) From: "Daniel O'Callaghan" To: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ipfw vs ipfilter? In-Reply-To: <199608142231.PAA00154@freefall.freebsd.org> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk Well, it looks like I'm the lone voice in favour of ipfw, for a specific purpose, anyway. I much prefer Poul-Henning's (partial)rewrite of ipfw over Ugen's syntax, but am in the process of converting a firewall to ipfilter from Ugen's ipfw (FreeBSD 2.1.0). There are a couple of things which I prefer in ipfw-current over ipfilter: * The ability to number each rule and insert rules into the middle of the rule table without the need for flush/re-install. * The clear accounting details available which are listed by rule number. I'm currently using the latter to do accounting for my ISP business. Because each rule is numbered, it is easy (in perl) to relate rule numbers to customers. I'll confess that I have not investigated the ipfilter accounting yet, but I *do* like Poul-Henning's rule numbers in ipfw. Any chance of having numbered rules, Darren? Danny