Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 02:42:09 -0800 From: Julian Elischer <julian@whistle.com> To: Andrew Stesin <stesin@gu.net> Cc: Brian Somers <brian@awfulhak.demon.co.uk>, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD as an ISDN Router Message-ID: <32DE0601.794BDF32@whistle.com> References: <Pine.BSF.3.95.970116103950.3924F-100000@trifork.gu.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Andrew Stesin wrote: > > Dear Brian, > > On Thu, 16 Jan 1997, Brian Somers wrote: > > > The alias stuff converts *every* port number for a given interface, making > > what appears to be going on and what's actually going on into two completely > > different things. > > Would you mind explaining me please, how the stuff discussed > here differs from what IPfilter (with NAT "range-to-range" > functionality) (see http://coombs.anu.edu.au/~avalon > for details) does? > > thanks! > > At one stage we needed things here that we could do with IPfw and not ipfilter... some of them have gone away.. I still like the possibilty of the 'goto ' in our code using the line numbers and I don't see the 'not' operation phk just added. We'd still like to see a 'divert' option.. it just has too many uses but most of THAT code is independent of ipfw an dipfilter could add it with almost no work.. Poul and others.. The linux code has diverged almost completely away, the BSDI code doesn't match ours much any more. I'm wondering which way give us more 'bang for our buck'? both do the job. but netBSD and Open BSD have integrated ipfilter.. we might look at doing the same.. the transparent proxy support is really important. pitty I feel like I'm betraying some long term trusted friend :)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?32DE0601.794BDF32>