-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

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
NetBSD boxes.

I'm not thrilled with ipf -- I find it cumbersome at least, and
fickle.

- --Michael

Pavel Cahyna <pcah8322@artax.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> 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.
> 
> Pavel 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (NetBSD)
Comment: See http://www.flame.org/~explorer/pgp for my keys

iD8DBQE9zFwhl6Nz7kJWYWYRAp+iAJ9FmqJh7bYSTctiyexeXfjl+J9qNQCeNaPD
JAWZu9fgzyQhn3pU2jUyn+8=
=w1ly
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----