On Sat, 19 Jun 1999, Julian Elischer wrote:
> As a contributor to ipfw, notice that I will be sticking my oar into the
> water when it comes to deleting it unless I'm very sure that the ipf stuff
> is better. Unless you're Danish you don't just get to delete bits of the
> tree without a lot of agreement, especially from those who are working on
> it.. (in this case luigi and I would both be extrememly interested).
Deleting IPFW would be a _long_ time from now, if at all. What it looks
like now is:
1. making ipf and ipfw equivalent in functionality
2. cleaning up both
3. MAYBE starting a brand new firewall project
I wasn't planning on trying to rip something out from under anyone :)
>
>
> On Sat, 19 Jun 1999, Brian F. Feldman wrote:
>
> > On 19 Jun 1999, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote:
> >
> > > "Brian F. Feldman" <green@unixhelp.org> writes:
> > > > It might be worth (discussion of) making ipfilter the firewall of
> > > > choice for 4.0. There would of course be rule conversion
> > > > scripts/programs (ipfw->ipf(5)), and ipfilter would be converted to
> > > > a KLD, cruft removed (I'm going to work on these), and ipfilter KLD
> > > > support (currently options IPFILTER_LKM) made a non-option. It seems
> > > > that our pretty proprietary ipfw is no longer a good idea.
> > >
> > > If ipfilter can to everything ipfw can (judging from ipf(5), it can)
> > > and you even manage to keep an ipfw(8) command around so those who
> > > want kan keep using the old syntax still can, then I for one have no
> > > objections.
> > >
> > > Rewriting ipfw rules to ipfilter rules on the fly should be trivial; a
> > > simple Perl script should be sufficient.
> >
> > Not quite as trivial as you think. ipfw and ipf are completely backwards when it comes
> > to rule order: in ipfw, the first rule matched takes effect; in ipf, the last rule matched
> > takes effect. Plus, ipf doesn't have rule numbers (but there's similar functionailty.)
> > If you think you can get used to them both enough to tackle this, I'll handle other
> > things, and we can have a working replacement for crufty old ipfw. Note that Luigi's
> > extra ipfw functionality and my extra ipfw functionality _will_ be wanted in ipf
> > before everyone is necessarily willing to switch. I have a feeling there will be some
> > holdouts that, even if ipfw is removed, they'll MFS (merge from stable) ipfw back just
> > because they want to keep the old way. Ipfw could be dead for 4.0-RELEASE, as I see it
> > now. More discussion is, however, necessary.
> >
> > >
> > > DES
> > > --
> > > Dag-Erling Smorgrav - des@flood.ping.uio.no
> > >
> >
> > Brian Fundakowski Feldman _ __ ___ ____ ___ ___ ___
> > green@FreeBSD.org _ __ ___ | _ ) __| \
> > FreeBSD: The Power to Serve! _ __ | _ \._ \ |) |
> > http://www.FreeBSD.org/ _ |___/___/___/
> >
> >
> >
> > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
> > with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
> >
>
>
>
> To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
> with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
>
Brian Fundakowski Feldman _ __ ___ ____ ___ ___ ___
green@FreeBSD.org _ __ ___ | _ ) __| \
FreeBSD: The Power to Serve! _ __ | _ \._ \ |) |
http://www.FreeBSD.org/ _ |___/___/___/
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message