On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 6:50 AM, Mark Felder <f...@freebsd.org> wrote:
> > On Jul 19, 2014, at 3:35, Andreas Nilsson <andrn...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 4:40 AM, Darren Pilgrim < > > list_free...@bluerosetech.com> wrote: > > > >> On 7/18/2014 4:06 AM, Gleb Smirnoff wrote: > >> > >>> K> b) We are a major release away from OpenBSD (5.6 coming soon) - is > >>> K> following OpenBSD's pf the past? - should it be? > >>> > >>> Following OpenBSD on features would be cool, but no bulk imports > >>> would be made again. Bulk imports produce bad quality of port, > >>> and also pf in OpenBSD has no multi thread support. > >>> > >> > >> I would much rather have a slower pf that actually supports modern > >> networking than a faster one I can't use due to showstopper flaws and > >> missing features. > >> > > > > So would I. Not that we use pf, but anyway. > > > >> > >> There is currently no viable firewall module for FreeBSD if you want to > do > >> things like route IPv6. > > > > > > Isn't that possible with ipfw? > > > > Perhaps the pf guys in OpenBSD could be convinced to start openpf and > have > > porting layer as in openzfs. > > > > I do not know ipfw IPv6 limitations, but the Wikipedia article says: > > * IPv6 support (with several limitations) > > > Choice is nice, but I would like to see the project promote one firewall > to users. My coworkers long ago jumped ship from ipfw to pf and I know > regret that decision due to the IPv6 bugs. At this point it's too hard to > migrate all the servers off of pf. > _______________________________________________ > email@example.com mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org" > I believe that this is obsolete, at least with 10. It certainly used to be the case in older versions. I suspect the improved ipfw is now in 9.3 and perhaps even 8.4, but I can't swear to it. I do know that the 10.0 version broke several of my firewall rules which would have made back-porting to older versions unacceptable but I believe that this is no longer the case. Some IPv6 specific keywords had been eliminated, but I think that they are all back in place, now. No longer required, but there for compatibility. The last feature I am aware of that lacked ipv6 support was tables. If any more exist, they are subtle and I have not hit hem to this point. -- R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer, Retired E-mail: rkober...@gmail.com _______________________________________________ firstname.lastname@example.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"