IPFW and PF
greenwood.andy at gmail.com
Mon Oct 30 15:22:35 UTC 2006
On 10/30/06, Lowell Gilbert <freebsd-questions-local at be-well.ilk.org> wrote:
> "Andy Greenwood" <greenwood.andy at gmail.com> top-posted:
> > On 10/28/06, David Schulz <davidschulz at tca-cable-connector.com> wrote:
> >> Hi all,
> >> IPFW seems to be the same IPFW that is used on MacOSX, so it seems to
> >> make sense to learn and lean on IPFW when using in a mixed Machine
> >> Environment. On the other side, many People seem to say PF is easier
> >> to manage once a setup gets complicated. As usual, both sides have
> >> their own valid points. My question though is not whether any of the
> >> two , IPFW of PF is better then the other, but which of the two do
> >> you use, and why?
> > PF, for two reasons. Firstly, because I don't have to mess with
> > arbitrary rule numbers; I can just scroll down the page and know that
> > rules will be executed in that order. Secondly becuase I can easily
> > integrate bruteforceblocker.
> Wow. I can see some advantages either way, but I can't see any
> differences on those grounds. After all, rule numbers *aren't*
> required in ipfw (even the example script doesn't use them). And
> bruteblock works with ipfw in *very* much the same way that
> bruteforceblock does with pf.
Sorry, that should've been Altq, not bruteforceblocker. I wasn't aware
that rule numbers weren't required in IPFW. Oh well, you learn
something new everyday.
> freebsd-questions at freebsd.org mailing list
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"
I'm nerdy in the extreme and whiter than sour cream
More information about the freebsd-questions