Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2012 08:40:18 -0500 From: Thomas Johnson <tom@claimlynx.com> To: freebsd-pf@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [HEADS UP] merging projects/pf into head Message-ID: <CAFevjstpeDTZgrjub-9-Ask7kDgQXdfAiF7PMObU6pPu0NEMsQ@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <CAFevjsvp8wVByf0ubAGzCSD7iAc=_Bk-3ybb4p748-Qpc6aAHw@mail.gmail.com> References: <20120905115140.GF15915@FreeBSD.org> <50476187.8000303@gibfest.dk> <20120905183607.GI15915@glebius.int.ru> <CAFevjsvp8wVByf0ubAGzCSD7iAc=_Bk-3ybb4p748-Qpc6aAHw@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>From a strictly end-user perspective, I can say that we have been eagerly awaiting a new port of the OpenBSD/pf code. We have immediate applications for a number of the newish features, 'match' support in particular. We have investigated switching to OpenBSD, but we really like our homogenous FreeBSD environment. That being said, Gleb's performance changes are intriguing. The fact of the matter is that we are getting along alright without the new goodies, and we would like to get some more mileage out of our existing routing gear. My pf-envy really only gets really bad for the month surrounding BSDCan :-) On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 1:36 PM, Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@freebsd.org> wrote: > > > What's bad with "getting stuck" with old syntax? I personally don't have > any problems with it. I have had problems with performance, however. > -- Thomas Johnson ClaimLynx, Inc.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAFevjstpeDTZgrjub-9-Ask7kDgQXdfAiF7PMObU6pPu0NEMsQ>