From owner-freebsd-net  Tue May  1 10:19:43 2001
Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
Received: from coconut.itojun.org (coconut.itojun.org [210.160.95.97])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E0D837B422
	for <freebsd-net@freebsd.org>; Tue,  1 May 2001 10:19:40 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from itojun@itojun.org)
Received: from itojun.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by coconut.itojun.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 83C834B0B; Wed,  2 May 2001 02:19:37 +0900 (JST)
To: Gunther Schadow <gunther@aurora.regenstrief.org>
Cc: snap-users@kame.net, freebsd-net@freebsd.org,
	ipfilter@coombs.anu.edu.au, altq@csl.sony.co.jp
In-reply-to: gunther's message of Tue, 01 May 2001 17:12:25 GMT.
      <3AEEEE79.8F7CC7B0@aurora.regenstrief.org> 
X-Template-Reply-To: itojun@itojun.org
X-Template-Return-Receipt-To: itojun@itojun.org
X-PGP-Fingerprint: F8 24 B4 2C 8C 98 57 FD  90 5F B4 60 79 54 16 E2
Subject: Re: [altq 806] The future of ALTQ, IPsec & IPFILTER playing together ... 
From: itojun@iijlab.net
Date: Wed, 02 May 2001 02:19:37 +0900
Message-ID: <2082.988737577@itojun.org>
Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org

>If we keep the filter matching rules separate in IPFILTER,
>IPSEC and ALTQ for much longer, this is only duplicating
>the maintenance work and will prevent these three great
>packages to work together happily.

	please be aware that, all *BSD projects are using different
	packet filter/NAT code, so unifying packet classifier is a
	big big job.  try looking at amount of #ifdefs in ipfilter, altq
	and kame ipsec code.

itojun

To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message