Base import proposal: relayd

[Mohacsi Janos]

Dear All,
 	I would appricate the fixes in ports tree first. I use relayd for 
a while on FreeBSD 7 stable. I have problem with the tcp checking.

Janos Mohacsi
Head of HBONE+ project
Network Engineer, Deputy Director of Network Planning and Projects
NIIF/HUNGARNET, HUNGARY
Key 70EF9882: DEC2 C685 1ED4 C95A 145F  4300 6F64 7B00 70EF 9882

On Thu, 27 May 2010, Martin Matuska wrote:

> Well, what relayd actually provides is level 3 and level 7 reverse proxy
> (with transparency support) and a load-balancer.
>
> We could say that this can be seen as a "frontend to pf", but also as a
> level 7 reverse proxy like varnish or pound. I have experience with all
> of these. The configuration file syntax matches pf.conf(5). People with
> pf(4) skills can take a benefit of it, for me it was the daemon I was
> searching for a long time.
>
> Why putting it in base? We could provide an out-of-the box load-blancing
> solution with service availability checking.
> This is indeed very useful when FreeBSD is used as a (load-balancing)
> firewall. In addition, the code is quite small and easy to integrate.
>
> On the other hand, the current port (dating december 2007) is in a very
> buggy state and I do not recommend using it, as it might easily confuse
> your pf. The bugs are major, e.g. not cleaning pf rules/tables/anchors
> on exit or segfault on reloading a mistyped configuration file.
>
> As an alternative I would like to maintain the port, I am already trying
> to get in touch with Jun Kuriyama.
>
> Cheers,
> mm
>
> Dňa 27. 5. 2010 15:34, Max Laier  wrote / napísal(a):
>> Hello Martin,
>>
>> On Thursday 27 May 2010 13:40:22 Martin Matuska wrote:
>>
>>> Comments and suggestions are welcome.
>>>
>> first off, thank you for your interest in pf - more hands are greatly
>> appreciated!
>>
>> On the $subj, I'm not sure what the added benefit of relayd in base is.
>> Having it in ports makes it easier to pull in new features/releases.  The same
>> could be said for (t)ftp-proxy, but it was decided that ftp NAT support is a
>> *basic* function of any firewall and therefore should be in the base system.
>>
>> Can you share your reasons for wanting it in base as opposed to ports?
>>
>> On the nitpicking side of things - from a quick glance:  The build of
>> relayd/ctl should probably be conditional on WITHOUT_PF.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>   Max
>>
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-pf at freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-pf
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-pf-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"
>