Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2000 02:56:01 +0900 From: Yoshinobu Inoue <shin@nd.net.fujitsu.co.jp> To: green@FreeBSD.org Cc: shin@FreeBSD.org, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/netinet6 in6.c Message-ID: <20000128025601A.shin@nd.net.fujitsu.co.jp> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0001271233020.95997-100000@green.dyndns.org> References: <200001271004.CAA34500@freefall.freebsd.org> <Pine.BSF.4.21.0001271233020.95997-100000@green.dyndns.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> be a problem to have both. It would be a bad idea to just plain have 4.0 > go out without the IPv6 firewall, even if that said firewall was missing > features of the IPv4 one. I would work on merging the features of the IPv4 > ipfw into the ipfw6 after 4.0. What do you think? To think about the time left, I think the only possible way is just merge KAME/FreeBSD3.4 ipfw6. (Once I was almost merging.) But that is actually based on FreeBSD22x ipfw, so somewhat old. It doesn't support even LKM. If you think even such ipfw6 is OK, then I'll try re-merging it. (ipfw6 related ifdef's are left as is, so re-enabling it won't be too much work.) Yoshinobu Inoue To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20000128025601A.shin>