On Mon, Jun 30, 2003 at 03:15:48PM -0400, ww@STYX.ORG wrote:
> Just a nit: while I too wonder why we would need several
> classification engines, whatever we end up with should be
> as general as possible -- i.e. not restricted to IP. I
> consider the ability to match on MAC address, VLAN tag,
> MPLS label, PPPoE session, etc. to be quite useful indeed.

And I want to write my own, for my own needs, parsing the headers of
my own protocol. This is why a general API is usefull.


> 
> If the consensus points to a move towards PF, why not leave
> IPF as is, integrate PF and ALTQ and all of the fancy 
> features, and then, when it is stable, deprecate IPF?
> 
> It shouldn't be that much of a headache as long as the
> PF config syntax remains a superset of IPF's. A

We never talked about deprecating IPF. PF isn't a superset of IPF. I don't
see keep frags here, for example.

-- 
Manuel Bouyer <bouyer@antioche.eu.org>
     NetBSD: 24 ans d'experience feront toujours la difference
--