Subject: Re: ipfw: FreeBSD -> NetBSD port [WAS: RE: dummynet: FreeBSD ->NetBSD
To: Nicolas Saurbier <>
From: Thomas E. Spanjaard <>
List: tech-net
Date: 02/27/2006 16:15:40
This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Nicolas Saurbier wrote:
>>On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 12:03:36 +0000, Rui Paulo wrote:
>>>Isn't dummynet very integrated with ipfw ? If so, I suspect one must
>>>port ipfw first :-) (flame away!)
> Agree on that!  So let's change "Subject:" ;-)

If I were you I wouldn't waste any effort in porting ipfw and dummynet, 
as they have been replaced long ago by better alternatives (pf and 
openbsd's altq, imo). Ipfw and dummynet are so-called 'Luigicode', after 
the principal author of both. Look at the sources to get what I mean.

>>Sigh, new ALTQ API.... ;-)
> Jepp, that ALTQ-thing is pretty outdated by now...
> This is a real gap between NetBSD and Open/FreeBSD.
> OK, by now we have pflkm that patches altq but a new API for the good-old
> ALTQ would be a good step ahead. Is there any1 already working on this point?

It's a real pain that working out an appropriate new API with all the 
new ALTQ features as OpenBSD (and FreeBSD/DragonFlyBSD) ha(s)(ve), turns 
out to be so hard. I've seen several people come and go working on a new 
API, and quite frankly my expectations of finally having a finished spec 
alone diminish by the day. Perhaps core@ should set a direction for it 
and start kicking people off of their asses ;).

         Thomas E. Spanjaard

Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"

Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (NetBSD)