From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Dec 30 20:38:52 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A105A16A4CE for ; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 20:38:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from priv-edtnes56.telusplanet.net (defout.telus.net [199.185.220.240]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A1E143D3F for ; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 20:38:51 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from j.l@telus.net) Received: from telus.net ([216.232.214.191]) by priv-edtnes56.telusplanet.netESMTP <20031231043850.DIRW6835.priv-edtnes56.telusplanet.net@telus.net>; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 21:38:50 -0700 Message-ID: <3FF25332.2080804@telus.net> Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 20:40:18 -0800 From: Jonathan Lin User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.6b) Gecko/20031205 Thunderbird/0.4 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: fbsd_user@a1poweruser.com References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: questions@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: ipf / pf X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 04:38:52 -0000 Thanks for the reply ... I did a bit more reading about it, and found that ipf used to be in openbsd, until some sort of license dispute. Then the openbsd people supposedly wrote their own pf ... so there's probably no relation between the two... as for the scripting .. i'll probably have to look into that a little more before i do anything like that ... i'll just stick to plain old ipf rules for now ... thanks again fbsd_user wrote: >PF has been just ported to FBSD. I don't know if ipf & pf have a >common code background, but I do know pf & ipf have totally >different rule processing logic though the rules do look some what >common. When it comes to using variables on the rule set, that is >just the normal function of shell processing. Ipfw, ipf, and pf can >all be buried inside of an shell script and perform variable >substitution. >In FBSD the rc.conf statement for pointing to the directory location >of the ipf rules can not process a script. You just point that >rc.conf statement to an empty file just to get the system up. Then >you have script in the startup application directory that executes >to load the ipf rules. Works great. > >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-freebsd-questions@freebsd.org >[mailto:owner-freebsd-questions@freebsd.org]On Behalf Of >j.l@telus.net >Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2003 7:35 PM >To: questions@FreeBSD.org >Subject: ipf / pf > >Hi, > >Here's a question that might seem trivial: > >What's the relationship between the freebsd ipf and the openbsd pf? >Are they >the same thing, or are they separately developed branches of a >common >codebase? Or maybe they are totally different. I ask this because >I was >looking around for guides for ipf.rules, and some of the openbsd pf >examples >look similar, but some command syntax are different. The openbsd >pf.conf >example had the ability to define variables of ip addresses, >interface names, >etc, but it doesn't seem to work with ipf.rules. Is there any way >to define >variables in ipf.rules? > >please cc me in your responses cause I'm not subscribed to the list > >thanks so much >jonathan > > > >_______________________________________________ >freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list >http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions >To unsubscribe, send any mail to >"freebsd-questions-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > > > >