From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Sun Apr 14 18:55:50 2013
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: current@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [8.8.178.115])
 by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF6D3F1D;
 Sun, 14 Apr 2013 18:55:50 +0000 (UTC)
 (envelope-from lists@rewt.org.uk)
Received: from abby.lhr1.as41113.net (hosted.mx.as41113.net [91.208.177.22])
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83136D88;
 Sun, 14 Apr 2013 18:55:49 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [IPv6:2001:b70:201:300::397] (unknown
 [IPv6:2001:b70:201:300::397])
 (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 (Authenticated sender: lists@rewt.org.uk)
 by abby.lhr1.as41113.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3Zphqx5yNPz1Q2;
 Sun, 14 Apr 2013 19:55:41 +0100 (BST)
Message-ID: <516AFB99.2040007@rewt.org.uk>
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2013 19:55:21 +0100
From: Joe Holden <lists@rewt.org.uk>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (Windows/20100228)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: wishmaster <artemrts@ukr.net>
Subject: Re: ipfilter(4) needs maintainer
References: <20130411201805.GD76816@FreeBSD.org>
 <7D8ACD5C-821D-4505-82E4-02267A7BA4F8@FreeBSD.org>
 <E2F803DD-1F3A-430E-957F-7AB1904CDF42@samsco.org>
 <96D56EAE-E797-429E-AEC9-42B19B048CCC@FreeBSD.org>
 <6DEDD3EA-45C1-4549-AA13-5E4F6674BE3E@samsco.org>
 <2D0B66DB-E232-4F34-9D01-57DF226B9BAA@FreeBSD.org>
 <2DA4A561-3304-432D-B5D1-7053A27E758F@yahoo.com>
 <F45FFB8A-4B54-4AEF-AA19-D96DAD0C399D@felyko.com>
 <CADLo839TyKF2dnONpQ6fyUAVOHG1dYYXih5wS3jANVZBiR=VTA@mail.gmail.com>
 <alpine.BSF.2.00.1304140946440.10505@wonkity.com>
 <20130414160648.GD96431@in-addr.com>
 <36562.1365960622.5652758659450863616@ffe10.ukr.net>
In-Reply-To: <36562.1365960622.5652758659450863616@ffe10.ukr.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Gary Palmer <gpalmer@freebsd.org>,
 "current@freebsd.org" <current@freebsd.org>,
 "net@freebsd.org" <net@freebsd.org>
X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current
 <freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-current>, 
 <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
 <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2013 18:55:50 -0000

wishmaster wrote:

>  --- Original message ---
> From: "Gary Palmer" <gpalmer@freebsd.org>
> Date: 14 April 2013, 19:06:59
> 
>  
>> On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 09:48:33AM -0600, Warren Block wrote:
>>> Is it possible to move ipfilter into a port?
>> That may work short term, but the ENOMAINTAINER problem will quickly creep
>> up again as kernel APIs change.  If the author has lost interest in
>> maintaining the FreeBSD port of ipfilter then unless someone steps forward
>> to carry on the work, I don't see much of a future for ipfilter in
>> FreeBSD
>>
>> Do we honestly need three packet filters?
>   
>     Yes! This is the most clever thought in this thread. Why we need 3 firewalls? Two packet filters it's excess too.
>      We have two packet filters: one with excellent syntax and functionality but with outdated bandwidth control mechanism (aka ALTQ); another - with nice traffic shaper/prioritization (dummynet)/classification (diffused) but with complicated implementation  in not trivial tasks.
>     May be the next step will be discussion about one packet filter in the system?..
> 
> Cheers,
For non-nat ipfw is still superior in every way, numbered rules (think: 
scripts), dummynet, much faster than pf, syntax is a lot nicer and 
predictable...

Does anyone even use ipf? it doesn't even work on Linux anymore, junk it 
and keep pf+ipfw, job done.