Re: packet order, ipf or ipfw (offtopic)
From: Max Laier (max_at_love2party.net)
Date: 07/29/04
- Previous message: Michael DeMan: "Re: packet order, ipf or ipfw"
- In reply to: Andrew Riabtsev: "Re[2]: packet order, ipf or ipfw (offtopic)"
- Next in thread: Andrew Riabtsev: "Re: packet order, ipf or ipfw"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
To: Andrew Riabtsev <resident@b-o.ru> Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2004 09:57:50 +0200
On Thursday 29 July 2004 09:25, Andrew Riabtsev wrote:
> Hello Max,
>
> Thursday, July 29, 2004, 1:46:06 AM, you wrote:
>
> ML> Another alternative (on FreeBSD-current) would be pf+ALTQ, btw ;)
> Is there any chance to see one day pf for 4.X-RELEASE? I'm still
> thinking pf is the best firewall ever made but it is very frustrated i
> can't use it on freeBSD boxes. :(
> Is there some serios problem on porting pf to 4.X-RELEASE? Or it's
> just a question of free time?
4-STABLE is dead, hail to 5-STABLE! ;)
Seriously, I have never used 4 and think that 5.3 will mark the beginning of a
very powerful 5-STABLE branch. So the reason why there is no pf port for 4.x
is, that I am not interested in it. There are efforts to port it to DragonFly
which is still very close to FreeBSD 4.x in some respects and hence it should
not be too much work to take it from there. Other than that, pf is part of
the KAME-tree and comes with the KAME-snapshots, which are available for 4.x
AFAIK. ALTQ is a problem whichever way you choose.
-- /"\ Best regards, | mlaier@freebsd.org \ / Max Laier | ICQ #67774661 X http://pf4freebsd.love2party.net/ | mlaier@EFnet / \ ASCII Ribbon Campaign | Against HTML Mail and News
- application/pgp-signature attachment: signature
- Previous message: Michael DeMan: "Re: packet order, ipf or ipfw"
- In reply to: Andrew Riabtsev: "Re[2]: packet order, ipf or ipfw (offtopic)"
- Next in thread: Andrew Riabtsev: "Re: packet order, ipf or ipfw"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
|
