Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2011 16:16:32 -0500 From: jhell <jhell@DataIX.net> To: Eir Nym <eirnym@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-pf@freebsd.org Subject: Re: PF from OpenBSD 4.7 Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1102201611490.13814@qvfongpu.qngnvk.ybpny> In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinqockMyjNjxesATm1yFNdRNBVcUaG=Z2a0PQw5@mail.gmail.com> References: <AANLkTi=P_KikS_GHn1h265ScL%2BcbwN1q4VitaMcWVuWx@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1102192242110.4222@qvfongpu.qngnvk.ybpny> <AANLkTinqockMyjNjxesATm1yFNdRNBVcUaG=Z2a0PQw5@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 13:27, eirnym@ wrote: > On 20 February 2011 06:50, jhell <jhell@dataix.net> wrote: >> >> On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 03:26, eirnym@ wrote: >>> >>> I heard while ago about packet filter update coming, but there're no >>> news about. Which status of this update? >>> >> >> This was for OpenBSD pf45 not pf47. The patchset should be somewhere in the >> archives for HEAD. >> > > Differences between pf45 and pf47 are more smaller than between pf45 > and current pf. > > I've found them, but there no status about. Should I ask same question > in freebsd-current@ mail list? > Difference being that after pf45 there was a syntax change that is nearly incompatible with the current pf41-45 syntax so AFAIR based on that pf45 was voted as the most likely to be merged into HEAD. There is an email from Theo @openbsd.org about the syntactic changes that have made people a little jumpy at adopting pf > 45 but eventually it will work its way in. What advantages to using pf47 over using pf45 have you found in ``real use'' ? and how realistic are those changes for the masses ? -- jhell
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?alpine.BSF.2.00.1102201611490.13814>