Subject: Re: IPF 4.1.20
To: Hauke Fath <hauke@Espresso.Rhein-Neckar.DE>
From: Brian Buhrow <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 05/07/2007 08:32:35
Hello. Is switching to pf, as opposed to ipf, an option? Seems like
you could do that witout upgrading, just by loading pf as a kernel module
and then disabling ipf, or rather, probably in the reverse order. I've
used both, though pf more, and found pf to be much more stable and
predictable. I've got it running in several production environments, and
it "just works", which is what I think you want. Granted, I'm not running a
bunch of NFS through it, but it has held up better in situations where I've
had problems with ipf.
Just a thought.
On May 5, 7:39pm, Hauke Fath wrote:
} Subject: Re: IPF 4.1.20
} [ipfilter update for netbsd-4]
} At 16:16 Uhr +0000 5.5.2007, Christos Zoulas wrote:
} >Have you tested -current and it works?
} No, I haven't. There have been discussions on the ipfilter list about
} problems with stateful connections, and I had a vague hope that newer
} versions of ipfilter would fix that... probably over-optimistic of me.
} This is about a production router serving ~100 people, and I already felt
} adventurous with upgrading it to netbsd-4, hoping that would fix the NFS
} issues with linux 2.6.x systems. It didn't, but added new ones. I'd have to
} set up a test network with a -current machine, and try to reproduce the
} problems... which I should have done before, probably. Given my current
} schedule @work, that's unlikely to happen this month, though.
} "It's never straight up and down" (DEVO)
>-- End of excerpt from Hauke Fath