Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 13:14:18 -0500 (EST) From: Robert Watson <robert@cyrus.watson.org> To: Brian Fundakowski Feldman <green@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Yoshinobu Inoue <shin@FreeBSD.org>, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/netinet6 in6.c Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.96.1000127131300.26015C-100000@fledge.watson.org> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0001271233020.95997-100000@green.dyndns.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 27 Jan 2000, Brian Fundakowski Feldman wrote: > I think you should get ipfw6 in now, even if it doesn't support everything > ipfw(4) does. As long as it doesn't interfere with ipfw(4), I really > think it should be in at the point of 4.0-RELEASE. My sentiments earlier > were that I didn't want incompatible ipfw's, however if one is controlled > by ipfw6(8) and one by ipfw(8), and they can be kept separate, it wouldn't > 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? Offering the first serious ipv6 firewall sounds like a reasonable objective, and if the code works, something that I'd like to see in 4.0 :-). Would be a great selling point to firewall vendors looking for an OS to base ipv6 firewall work on... Robert N M Watson robert@fledge.watson.org http://www.watson.org/~robert/ PGP key fingerprint: AF B5 5F FF A6 4A 79 37 ED 5F 55 E9 58 04 6A B1 TIS Labs at Network Associates, Safeport Network Services 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?Pine.BSF.3.96.1000127131300.26015C-100000>