Date: Wed, 28 May 2014 08:10:58 +0100 From: krad <kraduk@gmail.com> To: Charles Sprickman <spork@bway.net> Cc: freebsd-stable <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>, Peter Wemm <peter@wemm.org> Subject: Re: What is your favourite/best firewall on FreeBSD and why? Message-ID: <CALfReye%2Bf%2B%2BYW--TUdEo9fsVL%2BmAsfRNJyaVmx6UiO=WYFK-Aw@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <542A7016-FEE2-418C-B1F1-2227378BB4C8@bway.net> References: <20140520070926.GA92183@The.ie> <lln2o2$77d$1@usenet.ziemba.us> <FE050654-7AE7-4E5D-B191-9A620B9D61AD@tao.org.uk> <537FB96D.1040503@wemm.org> <542A7016-FEE2-418C-B1F1-2227378BB4C8@bway.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
or use rstp On 24 May 2014 07:12, Charles Sprickman <spork@bway.net> wrote: > On May 23, 2014, at 5:11 PM, Peter Wemm <peter@wemm.org> wrote: > > > On 5/23/14, 3:04 AM, Dr Josef Karthauser wrote: > >> On 23 May 2014, at 10:00, G. Paul Ziemba <pz-freebsd-stable@ziemba.us> > wrote: > >> > >>> Lucius.Rizzo@The.ie (Lucius Rizzo) writes: > >>> > >>>> Ultimately, outside configuration differences all firewalls are > essentially > >>>> serve the same purpose but I wonder what is your favorite and why? I= f > >>>> you were to run FreeBSD in production, which of the three would you > >>>> choose? IPFilter, PF or IPFW? > >>> I switched to pf about seven months ago as I began to need to > >>> manage bandwidth for specific classes of traffic (for example, > >>> prevent outbound mailing list email from saturating the link > >>> and reserve some bandwidth for interactive use). > >>> > >>> The syntax is very close and the NAT configuration is simpler in pf. > >> Does the pfsync handle NAT tables. > >> Could I use it to build a resilient carrier grade NAT solution? > >> > > > > Yes, pfsync includes NAT. While we don't use NAT in the freebsd.orgclu= ster, we do use it on certain ipv6+rfc1918 machines and it does handle > failover / recovery transparently. We use it with carp. > > > > Be aware that things can get a little twitchy if your switches have an > extended link-up periods. Our Juniper EX switches and ethernet interfaces > have a significant delay between 'ifconfig up' and link established. Thi= s > required some tweaks on the freebsd.org cluster but nothing unmanageable. > We probably should boot them into a hold-down state while things stabili= ze > and but we've taken the quick way out rather than doing it the ideal way. > > Off-topic, but it sounds like you need the Juniper equivalent of the Cisc= o > =E2=80=9Cspanning-tree portfast=E2=80=9D command on your switch interface= s that connect to > end hosts. The pause you see is part of STP where the switch port sits i= n > learning mode from 5 to 30 seconds before going to forwarding mode. This > is important for inter-switch links, but not at all needed when you know = a > port is only going to have a host plugged into it. > > Charles > > > > > -Peter > > > > _______________________________________________ > > freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list > > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable > > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscribe@freebsd.or= g > " > > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CALfReye%2Bf%2B%2BYW--TUdEo9fsVL%2BmAsfRNJyaVmx6UiO=WYFK-Aw>