[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: Including pf/altq in GENERIC?
Hello. What we do is use pf as a lodable kernel module and then
include altq in the kernel itself as an option. This works fine,
provides all of the functionality you need for both, and is quite stable.
On Aug 13, 4:51pm, Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
} Subject: Re: Including pf/altq in GENERIC?
} On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 10:16:58PM +0200, Adam Hoka wrote:
} > Hi!
} > Today I just asked someone on #NetBSD who runs over 30 installation
} > of NetBSD if he have some idea where we could improve for 5.0. He
} > asked if we could include pf and altq in the generic kernel. Many
} > agreed with that. I also think we should have this functionality
} > out-of-the-box in the kernel.
} > I know we have a pf lkm but some say its broken and it excludes
} > altq.
} Because the ALTQ maintainers never adjusted ALTQ to use a
} non-pf-specific interface for classifying packets (though they said
} they would do so), we can't use a modern ALTQ with our default
} kernels, which include ipfilter, not pf.
} Because we can't include ipfilter and pf in the same kernel, we cannot
} ship default kernels with pf, because users upgrading from older
} releases will reboot their systems and suddenly find that they have no
} packet filtering, which is unacceptable.
} We've been here before...
>-- End of excerpt from Thor Lancelot Simon
Main Index |
Thread Index |