Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sat, 24 Nov 2012 14:11:32 -0000
From:      "Paul Webster" <paul.g.webster@googlemail.com>
To:        freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: Upgrading FreeBSD to use the NEW pf syntax.
Message-ID:  <op.wn961ikajfousr@box.dlink.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAPBZQG35frdf3FN-Wuv18e5jgYfR4Ue_AUW-wyNTP-7kGnefUA@mail.gmail.com>
References:  <op.wn1vktomjfousr@box.dlink.com> <CAPBZQG2R%2BLXTo8xXZNhfWg%2BS4wtkDc1cAuhoHqdgyiGDGZuXOw@mail.gmail.com> <CAEW%2BogbUkHTaef98=CusV%2BV3qTFHqj-7x-_icKaom_0d2gv69g@mail.gmail.com> <201211201543.17903.Mark.Martinec%2Bfreebsd@ijs.si> <20121121075642.GR67660@FreeBSD.org> <CAPBZQG2-uDFm67NtYOQ3vV7Xh_3zzMMPr441DqnV7tOyViF4Lg@mail.gmail.com> <20121121145240.GE67660@glebius.int.ru> <CAPBZQG35frdf3FN-Wuv18e5jgYfR4Ue_AUW-wyNTP-7kGnefUA@mail.gmail.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
I only really need one question answered in honesty;

I personally think that by forking our own version of PF we have  =

essentially made something totally different to what everyone wants to  =

use. Which is fine, but because of that development of new features have=
  =

dropped behind.

If we had kept up with OpenBSD's version even if we trailed it by one  =

MAJOR release; at least part of the development would have been done.

So now we end up in a situation where we have these firewalls,  =

IPFW2,ipf,pf(modded) and users wanting the newer features of OpenBSD's p=
f.  =

So timewise the fork of pf may have actually cost more in time rather th=
an  =

less.

I don't however think the 'solution' to the problem is just to say no to=
  =

the userbase by not even trying to port across the newer pf. I think we =
 =

should look at bringing it across, slowly and seeing what the uptake is =
 =

like; in a few MAJOR releases we can start to look at which of the  =

firewalls realistically are not used that much and should be deprecated.=


On Wed, 21 Nov 2012 15:20:19 -0000, Ermal Lu=E7i <eri@freebsd.org> wrote=
:

> On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 3:52 PM, Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@freebsd.org>  =

> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 03:44:13PM +0100, Ermal Lu?i wrote:
>> E> Cherry-picking would be when tehre is reasonable similarities.
>> E> Also another argument to do this would be simplicity on locking as=
  =

>> well
>> as
>> E> i told you when you started the changes.
>>
>> You were wrong. OpenBSD doesn't move towards SMP model. Locking more
>> recent pf is not simplier, but the opposite.
>>
>>
> I am sorry but you are asking arguments i already have given you.
> You didn;t listen once and i do not expect this time as well.
>
>
>> E> Though i am open to work together on this to merge the new syntax
>> thorugh a
>> E> whole bulk merge rather than cherry-pick.
>>
>> How many bugs have you closed after the previous bulk import? Why sho=
uld
>> we expect anything good from new import if the previous one was a PIT=
A?
>>
>>
> Well you have used it for your work so it was not so PITA.
> Most of the ones you closed had message 'This is to old to be true'; '=
I
> have re-written PF and this should be fixed'.
>
>
>> And still I don't see any answer on the question: what exact features=
 or
>> perfomance improvements are we going to obtain from "the new pf"?
>>
>>
> See above.
>
>
>> E> You already have 'broken' some functionality as if-bound in FreeBS=
D
>> 10.x so
>>
>> Is there any PR filed on that? I didn't even receive a mail about tha=
t.
>>
>>
> I really do not think you do the right approach or the right  =

> communication
> on this.
> Sorry for replying to you ;).
>
>
>> --
>> Totus tuus, Glebius.
>>
>
>
>


-- =

Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?op.wn961ikajfousr>