On 10/30/06, Lowell Gilbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
"Andy Greenwood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> top-posted:
> On 10/28/06, David Schulz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> IPFW seems to be the same IPFW that is used on MacOSX, so it seems to
>> make sense to learn and lean on IPFW when using in a mixed Machine
>> Environment. On the other side, many People seem to say PF is easier
>> to manage once a setup gets complicated. As usual, both sides have
>> their own valid points. My question though is not whether any of the
>> two , IPFW of PF is better then the other, but which of the two do
>> you use, and why?
>>
> PF, for two reasons. Firstly, because I don't have to mess with
> arbitrary rule numbers; I can just scroll down the page and know that
> rules will be executed in that order. Secondly becuase I can easily
> integrate bruteforceblocker.
Wow. I can see some advantages either way, but I can't see any
differences on those grounds. After all, rule numbers *aren't*
required in ipfw (even the example script doesn't use them). And
bruteblock works with ipfw in *very* much the same way that
bruteforceblock does with pf.
Sorry, that should've been Altq, not bruteforceblocker. I wasn't aware
that rule numbers weren't required in IPFW. Oh well, you learn
something new everyday.
_______________________________________________
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
--
I'm nerdy in the extreme and whiter than sour cream
_______________________________________________
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
