On Jul 24, 7:54pm, Ryan Brackenbury wrote:
}
} - NAT Hairpinning is troublesome. For the life of me, I cannot get it to
NAT Hairpinning is just plain troublesome.
} - NPF won't automatically reload the IPs on the interfaces if they change.
} I have a cronjob doing `npfctl reload` every 5
On Jul 26, 8:53pm, acr...@gmail.com (Andy Ruhl) wrote:
-- Subject: Re: The State of NPF?
| On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 8:19 PM, Christos Zoulas <chris...@astron.com> wrote:
| > Thanks for you detailed report. Yes, all these are known deficiencies.
| > Some of them are easier to fix tha
On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 8:19 PM, Christos Zoulas wrote:
> Thanks for you detailed report. Yes, all these are known deficiencies.
> Some of them are easier to fix than others. We need to find someone to
> work on them. I've saved a copy of your message and I hope to find the
>
In article
On 07/25/17 01:54, Ryan Brackenbury wrote:
[---]
> - No UPnP support as far as I am aware
It's surprisingly easy to add support for new packet filters to
miniupnpd, so it's not a big task.
The only current showstopper is that npf supports dynamic filtering
rules but not dynamic NAT rules.
Hello Ryan,
sorry for the incomplemete response but I will just try to address the
documentation part of it.
Ryan Brackenbury writes:
> [...]
> - NPF documentation is also a bit of a sore point. The examples provided in
> /usr/share do not cover all the common situations that might arise. I
Ryan Brackenbury a écrit :
- No QoS support (ALTQ only works with PF, as far as I am aware)
I use ALTQ with NPF without any trouble on -7 and -8. ALTQ is mandatory
to route VoIP over VPN. I always hear if ALTQ is stopped ;-)
ftp-proxy doesn't work with NPF. I have tried to fix it without
his theory.
THE TL;DR - I am curious about the 'State of NPF' as it is now. I have not
seen a lot of development on the NPF front, and it would be a real shame to
let such a great firewall die off. So far, no other netfilter I have worked
with has su