Subject: Re: pf for NetBSD
To: Pavel Cahyna <email@example.com>
From: Michael Graff <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 11/08/2002 16:51:45
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
I'd very much like to see one less wheel in the mix, even if that
means I'd spend more time rewriting new rulesets for my existing
I'm not thrilled with ipf -- I find it cumbersome at least, and
Pavel Cahyna <email@example.com> writes:
> > I wonder what is exactly advantage of 'pf' over 'ipf'. Perhaps you
> > could summarize differencies?
> I think important (even if nontechnical) differencies are:
> - pf is BSD licensed,
> - there seems to be more active developement on pf.
> And in the future , there are plans to integrate ALTQ and pf (work has
> already begun). Right now, the syntax for ALTQ's filters is neither as
> intuitive nor as powerful as the syntax for pf or ipfilter, and it's
> a good idea to not have two filters, one for firewall and other for
> ALTQ. I'm not aware about such project for ipfilter.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (NetBSD)
Comment: See http://www.flame.org/~explorer/pgp for my keys
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----