Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 14:11:10 +0200 (EET) From: Andrew Stesin <stesin@gu.net> To: Julian Elischer <julian@whistle.com> Cc: Brian Somers <brian@awfulhak.demon.co.uk>, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD as an ISDN Router Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.95.970116135339.3924L-100000@trifork.gu.net> In-Reply-To: <32DE0601.794BDF32@whistle.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 16 Jan 1997, Julian Elischer wrote:
> 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.
No opinions.
> We'd still like to see a 'divert' option..
> it just has too many uses
I didn't got myself used to it yet, sorry... So
no opinions as well. (How can I discuss things
I don't know about? :)
> but most of THAT code is independent of ipfw and ipfilter could
> add it with almost no work..
Seems to be true.
> Poul and others..
> The linux code has diverged almost completely away,
BTW. Recent ipfwadm for Linux releases DO HAVE certain
advantages even comparing to IPfilter, I'm speaking
about NAT-style functionality.
NAT in IPfilter, yes it do work, after some critical bugs
were fixed recently; but it needs some effort to get
brought into 2.2 branch, though Darren said that he's
going to do this -- but not yet.
ipfwadm, on the other hand, a) works flawlessly on Linux
b) it is able to do a pretty smart things, i.e.
selective NAT based on destination address (or range)
as well. And this _is_ cool! ;)
> I'm wondering which way give us more 'bang for our buck'?
[...]
> the transparent proxy support is really important.
I think that this _is_ the answer.
> pitty
> I feel like I'm betraying some long term trusted friend :)
As for me, back in the days when I started doing those
things like IP filtering and NAT, FreeBSD's ipfw
had critical bugs and didn't have requested functionality.
So I never enabled it in my kernels, using different
versions of IPfilter instead.
Offtopic P.S.
As about NAT -- cisco's implementation from IOS 11.2
will become a de-facto standard soon, I think; if not yet.
There were even rumours that a new Gated will change
a style&syntax of config file to those of cisco's EXEC...
Something one can think about?
Best regards,
Andrew Stesin
nic-hdl: ST73-RIPE
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.95.970116135339.3924L-100000>