Matt Fretwell wrote: > Michal Mertl wrote: > > > I'd like to hear what do you all think about changing the ipfilter a bit > > to store some rule number in the rule itself. I understand we would > > probably have to do that to maintain backwards compatability. > > > Ipf and ipfw are separate entities. Granted, they both have their > pro's/con's, but to try to make one behave the same as the other, you may > just as well use the other. If ipfw fills your requirements, then by all > means use it, but I cannot see the point in wanting ipf to become a clone, > or vice versa. > > I am sure I will not be the only one on this list who is quite happy with > the way it already functions.
OK. But I didn't want to create a clone. I just like that particular feature of IPFW and got confused. I found (in the mailing list archives) Darren himself told someone to use the syntax without '@' and used nonconsecutive numbers (100, 200). I believe it's going to be rather easy to implement (and I offered to work on the implementation myself) and if done in backward compatible way it shouldn't bother you or anyone else who wouldn't use it. But if people don't think this is a good idea I'm not going to push it more. Michal
