Subject: Re: FW: State of pf integration into NetBSD?
To: Miles Nordin <carton@Ivy.NET>
From: Manuel Bouyer <email@example.com>
Date: 02/29/2004 15:31:39
On Sun, Feb 29, 2004 at 12:25:36AM -0500, Miles Nordin wrote:
> I couldn't find the thread with details about the problems with PF in
> the tech-net archives to which you referred, just a post from itojun
> in October. I don't want to reopen an old argument without the
> background. Do you remember the approximate date of the thread?
From what I found, it was at end of June
> Anyway, will there be no option to use PF as an ALTQ classifier? If
> so, what's the case for the current ALTQ classifier?
There will. The point is to be able to use something else than PF too,
using an appropriate API.
> One of the ways the current situation sucks compared to OpenBSD is
> that you cannot do things like prioritize TCP ACKs with NetBSD ALTQ.
> It might also be nice to, for example, assign TCP flows to classes
> using the NAT proxies like ftp, the ones used for ``keep state''
> firewalls. The ALTQ classifier is so primitive---is there some reason
> it's preferred over PF?
No reasons. The point is to have a proper API to be able to develop/use others
classifiers than PF if needed.
Manuel Bouyer <firstname.lastname@example.org>
NetBSD: 26 ans d'experience feront toujours la difference