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). Firstly, my apologies. My initial post obviously sounded more tardy than I intended it to. I meant by my response, (rephrasing in a slightly more elegant way), that unless the clue stick has missed me completely today, it already exists in its own, ipf'ish, way. I may, of course, be completely misunderstanding your requirement. > 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. With regards to whether it is worthwhile implementing, my personal opinion is of no consequence in that regard :) It is, at the end of the day, only my personal opinion. And once again, my apologies if I sounded offhand initially. Matt
