Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 13:44:37 +0300 From: Daniel Kalchev <daniel@digsys.bg> To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ipfilter(4) needs maintainer Message-ID: <516BDA15.6000605@digsys.bg> In-Reply-To: <516AFB99.2040007@rewt.org.uk> 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> <516AFB99.2040007@rewt.org.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 14.04.13 21:55, Joe Holden wrote: > 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... And, best of all, it still is buggy. At lest, it's tables handling is unusable. I have been very stubborn IPFW user for very long time, but finally gave up in favor of PF. Nothing like that ever since. I am also not convinced IPFW is any faster than PF. Daniel
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?516BDA15.6000605>