Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 00:33:07 -0500 From: James <james@towardex.com> To: Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@freebsd.org> Cc: net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: per-interface packet filters Message-ID: <20041214053307.GA97056@scylla.towardex.com> In-Reply-To: <20041213184700.GA37107@cell.sick.ru> References: <20041213124051.GB32719@cell.sick.ru> <41BDABFB.E64C0A31@freebsd.org> <20041213184700.GA37107@cell.sick.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
I'm personally against modifying ipfw(4) for this purpose. It gets into the complexity of syntax and simply violates the initial simple model of the whole ipfw packet filter itself. I agree in that freebsd systems acting as routers need a more "efficient" or "better" engine by allowing per-interface firewall hooks, but we all know pfil_hooks api already provides this; and modifying ipfw for this is just a mess for a little gain. That said, the pfil_hooks already provides the ifp -- so why not just write a new firewall of your own that is totally separate from pf/ipfw? Please feel free to make it as compiled (like Crisco Turbo ACL) instead of linear rule by rule checks :) Just need to make it compatible to pfil_hooks api. While it is good to make freebsd more router-like, keeping things simple for systems acting as non-routing platforms for endusers is also equally important. -J -- James Jun TowardEX Technologies, Inc. Technical Lead Boston IPv4/IPv6 Web Hosting, Colocation and james@towardex.com Network design/consulting & configuration services cell: 1(978)-394-2867 web: http://www.towardex.com , noc: www.twdx.net
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20041214053307.GA97056>