Norberto Meijome wrote:
after reading my own post i realised it wasn't too clear
I havent seen any way to control traffic for P2P apps reliably @ the
protocol layer,
'I havent seen any way to reliably control traffic for P2P apps by
simply looking @ ports + IP protocol'
u need to inspect
hey,
Daniel Dvořák wrote:
We are small wireless community and have shared access to internet for all
members. Core members decided to control p2p traffic by default and to allow
each person in individual way, after showing their knowledge of authorial
low. :)
I think you mean copyright law.
FreeBSD OS ?
Thanks
Dan
_
From: Daniel Dvořák [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2005 1:47 AM
To: 'freebsd-questions@freebsd.org'; 'freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org';
'freebsd-pf@freebsd.org'
Subject: Application layer firewall on FreeBSD, is it
Hi all,
let me ask you for task "how to control p2p applications and their traffic
with dynamic ports from user´s commputers on gateway".
We are small wireless community and have shared access to internet for all
members. Core members decided to control p2p traffic by default and to allow
each pe
--On June 26, 2005 12:40:14 AM +0100 Alex Zbyslaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Paul Schmehl wrote:
--On June 25, 2005 8:42:24 AM +0200 mess-mate <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I've a firewall/router/proxy with openbsd and think to replace it
with freebsd 5.4
Do you mean freebsd's PF don't suppor
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Khanh Cao
> Van
> Sent: Friday, June 24, 2005 9:33 AM
> To: freebsd-questions
> Subject: firewall on freebsd
>
>
> I'm going to learn about the freebsd firewall . In t
On 2005-06-26 22:15, Alex Zbyslaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
> >On 2005-06-26 00:40, Alex Zbyslaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>>pf on freebsd does support the "quick" keyword. The "default"
> >>>firewall, ipfw, does not.
> >>>
> >>This makes no sense to me. The two fi
Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
On 2005-06-26 00:40, Alex Zbyslaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Paul Schmehl wrote:
pf on freebsd does support the "quick" keyword. The "default"
firewall, ipfw, does not.
This makes no sense to me. The two firewalls work very differently.
[...]
You d
* Paul Schmehl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-06-24 12:58:51 -0500]:
> I've been using pf for a few years now, and I've never had problems
> understanding the syntax or how it works (but I also never do NAT, so
> that might be the reason it seems easy to me.)
Yes, pf is great, but doing NAT with pf is
On 2005-06-26 00:40, Alex Zbyslaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Paul Schmehl wrote:
> >pf on freebsd does support the "quick" keyword. The "default"
> >firewall, ipfw, does not.
>
> This makes no sense to me. The two firewalls work very differently.
>
> In pf, each rule is always processed on ever
Paul Schmehl wrote:
--On June 25, 2005 8:42:24 AM +0200 mess-mate <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I've a firewall/router/proxy with openbsd and think to replace it
with freebsd 5.4
Do you mean freebsd's PF don't support the 'quick' keyword ??
Thought PF on freebsd and openbsd was identical, isn't
--On June 25, 2005 8:42:24 AM +0200 mess-mate <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I've a firewall/router/proxy with openbsd and think to replace it
with freebsd 5.4
Do you mean freebsd's PF don't support the 'quick' keyword ??
Thought PF on freebsd and openbsd was identical, isn't ?
pf on freebsd does s
On Saturday 25 June 2005 09:17 am, mess-mate wrote:
> Andrew L. Gould <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | On Saturday 25 June 2005 05:19 am, Erik Nørgaard wrote:
> | > mess-mate wrote:
> | > > I've a firewall/router/proxy with openbsd and think to replace
> | > > it with freebsd 5.4
> | > > Do you mean
Andrew L. Gould <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| On Saturday 25 June 2005 05:19 am, Erik Nørgaard wrote:
| > mess-mate wrote:
| > > I've a firewall/router/proxy with openbsd and think to replace it
| > > with freebsd 5.4
| > > Do you mean freebsd's PF don't support the 'quick' keyword ??
| > > Thought
On Saturday 25 June 2005 05:19 am, Erik Nørgaard wrote:
> mess-mate wrote:
> > I've a firewall/router/proxy with openbsd and think to replace it
> > with freebsd 5.4
> > Do you mean freebsd's PF don't support the 'quick' keyword ??
> > Thought PF on freebsd and openbsd was identical, isn't ?
>
> It
mess-mate wrote:
I've a firewall/router/proxy with openbsd and think to replace it
with freebsd 5.4
Do you mean freebsd's PF don't support the 'quick' keyword ??
Thought PF on freebsd and openbsd was identical, isn't ?
It's a port, pf on FBSD 5.4 is the same as pf on OBSD 3.6, AFAIK. So if
you
On Sat, Jun 25, 2005 at 08:42:24AM +0200, mess-mate wrote:
> I've a firewall/router/proxy with openbsd and think to replace it
> with freebsd 5.4
> Do you mean freebsd's PF don't support the 'quick' keyword ??
> Thought PF on freebsd and openbsd was identical, isn't ?
I don't know if they're iden
...snip...
|
| Personally, I like the "quick" keyword of the OpenBSD firewall, (but not
enough to bother
| installing it.)
|
| Paul Schmehl ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
I've a firewall/router/proxy with openbsd and think to replace it
with freebsd 5.4
Do you mean freebsd's PF don't support the 'quick'
--On June 24, 2005 5:31:13 PM +0100 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Friday 24 June 2005 15:31, fbsd_user wrote:
Which firewall you select to use should be based on your level of
understanding of how information is moved across the internet.
Ipfilter is best suited for people who are just learning a
On 2005-06-24 10:59, Ean Kingston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> For anyone who wants to start the in-kernel vs user-land NAT argument,
> I've already been through it and there are valid arguments for both
> sides. So, I won't get into it again.
Agreed. Most of the people who use FreeBSD in SOHO in
On 2005-06-24 10:31, fbsd_user <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Which firewall you select to use should be based on your level of
> understanding of how information is moved across the internet.
>
> Ipfilter is best suited for people who are just learning about
> firewalling. PF is a little more automa
ebsd-questions
Subject: firewall on freebsd
I'm going to learn about the freebsd firewall . In the handbook list
some of them and I could not find out what is the best . So I decided to
post here hoping to gain some of your opinion and experience .
I would like to know what firewall was the most wanted
o use with
ipnat, but I am pretty happy with it. Is there anything that ipfw does better
than ipfilter to make it preferable?
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Khanh Cao
> Van
> Sent: Friday, June 24, 2005 9:33 AM
> T
On Friday 24 June 2005 10:59 am, Ean Kingston wrote:
> IPF was written for OpenBSD and later ported to FreeBSD. IPF came into
> existence because of disagreements between certain members of the OpenBSD
> team and the author of IPFilter. Filtering is done in the kernel and I
> believe NAT is also in
On June 24, 2005 09:33 am, Khanh Cao Van wrote:
> I'm going to learn about the freebsd firewall . In the handbook list
> some of them and I could not find out what is the best . So I decided
> to post here hoping to gain some of your opinion and experience .
> I would like to know what firewall was
ssage-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Khanh Cao
Van
Sent: Friday, June 24, 2005 9:33 AM
To: freebsd-questions
Subject: firewall on freebsd
I'm going to learn about the freebsd firewall . In the handbook list
some of them and I could not find out what is the best . So
I'm going to learn about the freebsd firewall . In the handbook list
some of them and I could not find out what is the best . So I decided
to post here hoping to gain some of your opinion and experience .
I would like to know what firewall was the most wanted ? I have used
Linux several months and
On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 12:37:45 -0800
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I'm upgrading the hardware on my webserver. It will run FreeBSD
> 4.9.
>
> I need to decide whether to use a hardware firewall (Cisco) or use
> ipfw, ipf, pf, etc.
>
> The hardware firewall will increase my monthly server rental bill
I'm upgrading the hardware on my webserver. It will run FreeBSD 4.9.
I need to decide whether to use a hardware firewall (Cisco) or use ipfw,
ipf, pf, etc.
The hardware firewall will increase my monthly server rental bill by
almost 30%. So I'm wondering if the significant extra cost is worth it
29 matches
Mail list logo
