Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2014 12:30:59 -0400 From: "Mike." <the.lists@mgm51.com> To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Future of pf / firewall in FreeBSD ? - does it have one ? Message-ID: <201407201230590265.00B479C4@smtp.24cl.home> In-Reply-To: <788274E2-7D66-45D9-89F6-81E8C2615D14@lastsummer.de> References: <53C706C9.6090506@com.jkkn.dk> <6326AB9D-C19A-434B-9681-380486C037E2@lastsummer.de> <53CB4736.90809@bluerosetech.com> <201407200939020335.0017641F@smtp.24cl.home> <788274E2-7D66-45D9-89F6-81E8C2615D14@lastsummer.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 7/20/2014 at 5:38 PM Franco Fichtner wrote: |On 20 Jul 2014, at 15:39, Mike. <the.lists@mgm51.com> wrote: | |> imho, the root problem here is that an effort to implement a single |> feature improvement (multi-threading) has caused the FreeBSD version |> of pf to apparently reach a near-unmaintainable position in the |> FreeBSD community because improvements from OpenBSD can no longer be |> ported over easily. FreeBSD's pf has been put in a virtual |> isolation chamber due to the multi-threaded enhancement. |> |> Was it worth it? | |Yes. This happened *three times* in BSD land now. How much more |proof does it take to make that clear? |[snip] ============= In this instance, more proof would consist of pf development not wallowing in inactivity. imo, tactical changes were implemented in pf without the strategic negative consequences affecting the decision process guiding the implementation of those tactical features. And that's backwards. Strategies direct tactics, not vice versa.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201407201230590265.00B479C4>