From owner-freebsd-security Thu Jul 27 0:13:54 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Received: from ux1.ibb.net (ibb0005.ibb.uu.nl [131.211.124.5]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 362C837C03A for ; Thu, 27 Jul 2000 00:13:49 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from reinoud@ibb.net) Received: from localhost (reinoud@localhost) by ux1.ibb.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/UX1TT) with SMTP id JAA08670; Thu, 27 Jul 2000 09:13:33 +0200 Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 09:13:33 +0200 (MET DST) From: Reinoud To: Gerhard Sittig Cc: freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: ipf or ipfw (was: log with dynamic firewall rules) In-Reply-To: <20000726191113.I24476@speedy.gsinet> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Wed, 26 Jul 2000, Gerhard Sittig wrote: > On Tue, Jul 25, 2000 at 21:56 -0500, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote: > > > > Would running both ipfw and ipf be considered over the top? > > I was never sure whether they collide or not. But having ipf > running I don't see a point in using ipfw. Make sure you have > There can be one reason to run ipfw and ipf together. I just use ipf as firewall, and started using ipfw cause dummynet can only be used when you're using ipfw as far as i can tell. So ipf is still used (and will always be :) ) as ip filter on the machines, and ipfw is used just to make dummynet work to control bandwidth. Bye, Reinoud. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message