Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 22:58:01 -0700 (MST) From: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@village.org> To: drosih@rpi.edu Cc: n@nectar.cc, dillon@apollo.backplane.com, freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Proposed Solution To Recent "firewall_enable" Thread. [Please Read] Message-ID: <20020130.225801.103629586.imp@village.org> In-Reply-To: <p0510122bb87e879d4ad3@[128.113.24.47]> References: <20020130225454.A48040@hellblazer.nectar.cc> <p0510122ab87e828d1b16@[128.113.24.47]> <p0510122bb87e879d4ad3@[128.113.24.47]>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message: <p0510122bb87e879d4ad3@[128.113.24.47]>
Garance A Drosihn <drosih@rpi.edu> writes:
: Why should only Joe Experienced User be getting the benefit of
: booting up with the firewall active? Now, I am *definitely* not
: suggesting this for -stable, but why don't we have the default
: GENERIC kernel include the firewall support? Why should anyone
: *have* to compile a kernel to get this full-time protection?
: ("fulltime" meaning "firewall active for the entire boot sequence").
ipfw or ipfilter. which one should we choose? That's why.
Warner
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020130.225801.103629586.imp>