Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 00:40:39 -0700 From: Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@icir.org> To: Nick Rogness <nick@rogness.net> Cc: Evgeny Ivanov <evgeny@networkersbg.com> Subject: Re: tables in ipfw2 Message-ID: <20040624004039.A62893@xorpc.icir.org> In-Reply-To: <20040624010726.H5174@skywalker.rogness.net>; from nick@rogness.net on Thu, Jun 24, 2004 at 01:09:14AM -0600 References: <200406240636.i5O6adNV000825@ns.networkersbg.com> <20040624064350.GA62743@ip.net.ua> <20040624010726.H5174@skywalker.rogness.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Jun 24, 2004 at 01:09:14AM -0600, Nick Rogness wrote: ... > Is there any reason why IPFW2 has not become the standard > IPFW...still not stable enough or ??? IPFW2 is backwards > compatible with IPFW is it not? at the time people wanted to check it for a while to make sure there weren't issues. I guess that given the option, this satisfied both worlds, so nobody cared to change the standard (the only reason for doing that would be remove ipfw1 at the next time there is a system change that would require an ipfw1 patch). cheers luigi
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040624004039.A62893>