On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 5:24 AM, Julian Elischer <jul...@freebsd.org> wrote:
> On 7/21/14, 7:27 AM, Andreas Nilsson wrote:
>> On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 7:41 PM, Alexander Kabaev <kab...@gmail.com>
>> On Sun, 20 Jul 2014 10:15:36 -0400
>>> Maxim Khitrov <m...@mxcrypt.com> wrote:
>>> On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 8:39 AM, Lars Engels <lars.eng...@0x20.net>
>>>>> On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 12:18:54PM +0100, krad wrote:
>>>>>> all of that is true, but you are missing the point. Having two
>>>>>> versions of pf on the bsd's at the user level, is a bad thing. It
>>>>>> confuses people, which puts them off. Its a classic case of divide
>>>>>> an conquer for other platforms. I really like the idea of the
>>>>>> openpf version, that has been mentioned in this thread. It would
>>>>>> be awesome if it ended up as a supported linux thing as well, so
>>>>>> the world could be rid of iptables. However i guess thats just an
>>>>>> unrealistic dream
>>>>> And you don't seem to get the point that _someone_ has to do the
>>>>> work. No one has stepped up so far, so nothing is going to change.
>>>> Gleb believes that the majority of FreeBSD users don't want the
>>>> updated syntax, among other changes, from the more recent pf versions.
>>>> Developers who share his opinion are not going to volunteer to do the
>>>> work. This discussion is about showing this belief to be wrong, which
>>>> is the first step in the process.
>>>> In my opinion, the way forward is to forget (at least temporarily) the
>>>> SMP changes, bring pf in sync with OpenBSD, put a policy in place to
>>>> follow their releases as closely as possible, and then try to
>>>> reintroduce all the SMP work. I think the latter has to be done
>>>> upstream, otherwise it'll always be a story of diverging codebases.
>>>> Furthermore, if FreeBSD developers were willing to spend some time
>>>> improving pf performance on OpenBSD, then Henning and other OpenBSD
>>>> developers might be more receptive to changes that make the porting
>>>> process easier.
>>> I am one person whose opinion Gleb got completely right - I could not
>>> care less about new syntax nor about how close or how far are we from
>>> OpenBSD, as long as pf works for my purposes and it does. This far
>>> into the thread and somebody has yet to provide a comprehensive list of
>>> the benefits that we allegedly miss, or to come up with the real
>>> benchmark result to substantiate the performance claims.
>>> Focusing on disproving anything Gleb might be believing in on the
>>> matter, while an interesting undertaking, does nothing to give you new
>>> pf you supposedly want. Doing the work and bringing it all the way to
>>> will completeness for commit - does.
>>> It was stated repeatedly by multiple people that FreeBSD's network
>>> stack is way too different from OpenBSD, we support features
>>> OpenBSD doesn't and vice versa, vimage is a good example, which throws a
>>> giant wrench into the plan of following OpenBSD 'as closely as
>>> possible', even as the expense of throwing away all of the SMP work
>>> done in pf to date.
>>> I like vimage, don't get me wrong, but it also seems to have lost
>> If vimage is the only thing holding a pf import back there ought to be
>> discussion about which is a priority.
> As one involved with Vimage, I get feedback all the time that lets me know
> it's in really heavy use in some pretty interesting commercial situations.
> It HAS lst some traction in terms of added work, but that's because it's
> solid enough for people to use.
> In the situations where it's being used, it's a game changer and rhe
> conversation goes something like:
> "hey vimage and pf don't work together.. guess that makes the firewall
> decision easy.. use ipfw"
> Good to know!
>> Also, the openbsd stack has some essential features missing in freebsd,
>> like mpls and md5 auth for bgp sessions.
>> firstname.lastname@example.org mailing list
>> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
email@example.com mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"