Re: Using NET_MPSAFE

[Brian Buhrow <buhrow%nfbcal.org@localhost>]

	hello.  We need the route-to  and reply-to functionality in pf(4)  in
order to support our service model.  I was told this hasn't been
implemented in npf(4).  Also, the instrumentation afforded by pfctl(8) with
regard to looking at state and rule tables seems to be pretty much
non-existent under npf(4).  We  could probably live without that, but it's
sure nice to have when debugging issues, especially when examining
protocols that punch dynamic holes through firewalls.

-thanks
-Brian