You can still use ipf for your system's packet filtering.
You just need to use pf (at the same time) for altq's work.

At least, that's the impression I've been getting.

-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Wise [mailto:jwise@draga.com]
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 1:22 PM
To: Kenjiro Cho
Cc: cyber@ono-sendai.com; itojun@iijlab.net; tech-net@netbsd.org
Subject: Re: PF for netbsd=20


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

On Fri, 27 Jun 2003, Kenjiro Cho wrote:

>...  pf is one of the
>best packet filters, and still evolving rapidly.

With my production sysadmin hat on, I'd say these two statements were
pretty close to mutually exclusive...


>So, it is possible to make ALTQ to work with ipf or other packet
>filters in the future.  But, at this moment, it seems much easier to
>just import pf for those who want to use pf-extended ALTQ.
>
>This is from the view of ALTQ.  There are people interested in pf for
>other reasons.

And there are many of us quite happy with IPF in comparison to PF, for a
variety of reasons.  While I am well aware of the shortcomings of the
version of ALTQ currently in NetBSD, I would _strongly_ oppose import of
any ALTQ version which prevented me from using ALTQ and ipf at the same
time.

Is this what you are saying the current version does?  Or am I
misunderstanding?

- --=20
				Jim Wise
				jwise@draga.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (NetBSD)

iD8DBQE+/H1MlGcH240chEIRAqsdAKDI1utifipPiv2YRIUrJySE0jwlRwCg0muz
1qkQ4EaxR6euhaCpbu7+6E4=3D
=3DGSih
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----