ipfilter(4) needs maintainer

[Sam Fourman Jr.]

I agree with this, we dont need 3 packet filters, it seems like we should
focus the people interested in working on packet filters,toward the packet
filter most actively maintained, the fact that there is 3 in base is
overkill, Just depreciate it and be done with it....
a new email, asking for help to bring pf closer to OpenBSD, is more of a
productive conversation.


On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 1:30 PM, wishmaster <artemrts at ukr.net> wrote:

>
>
>  --- Original message ---
> From: "Gary Palmer" <gpalmer at freebsd.org>
> Date: 14 April 2013, 19:06:59
>
>
> > On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 09:48:33AM -0600, Warren Block wrote:
> > > Is it possible to move ipfilter into a port?
> >
> > That may work short term, but the ENOMAINTAINER problem will quickly
> creep
> > up again as kernel APIs change.  If the author has lost interest in
> > maintaining the FreeBSD port of ipfilter then unless someone steps
> forward
> > to carry on the work, I don't see much of a future for ipfilter in
> > FreeBSD
> >
> > Do we honestly need three packet filters?
>
>     Yes! This is the most clever thought in this thread. Why we need 3
> firewalls? Two packet filters it's excess too.
>      We have two packet filters: one with excellent syntax and
> functionality but with outdated bandwidth control mechanism (aka ALTQ);
> another - with nice traffic shaper/prioritization (dummynet)/classification
> (diffused) but with complicated implementation  in not trivial tasks.
>     May be the next step will be discussion about one packet filter in the
> system?..
>
> Cheers,
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-net at freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"
>



-- 

Sam Fourman Jr.