Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2014 10:46:52 -0700 From: Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org> To: Mark Felder <feld@freebsd.org> Cc: "Kristian K. Nielsen" <freebsd@com.jkkn.dk>, freebsd-current <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>, FreeBSD Questions <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Future of pf / firewall in FreeBSD ? - does it have one ? Message-ID: <CAJ-Vmo=yefbo=hgKyhPSPGeg5cgTRc3r1X8R4XYiHKTMZbnCZw@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <ABB4C06F-6756-4D0D-B83E-0AFD67719B97@FreeBSD.org> References: <53C706C9.6090506@com.jkkn.dk> <ABB4C06F-6756-4D0D-B83E-0AFD67719B97@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
The flow in both directions has to include: * better locking / parallelism * virtualised forwarding support (ie, vimage) If he's happy to include some stubs for that, then sure. I think both dfbsd and freebsd can use the same pf. -a On 26 July 2014 08:27, Mark Felder <feld@freebsd.org> wrote: > We've already heard of Henning offering to help port a new pf but the olive branch has been extended even further. He responded to some comments of mine on twitter: > > @HenningBrauer: @rhymebyter @feldpos I offered help/advice to whomever seriously attempts to update pf in @dragonflybsd AND @freebsd. > > @HenningBrauer: @feldpos it takes someone in freebsd/netbsd/dragonfly to update their ancient pf versions, then code can flow bidirectional > > Technical hurdles aside, that sounds like the beginning of an OpenPf to me... > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAJ-Vmo=yefbo=hgKyhPSPGeg5cgTRc3r1X8R4XYiHKTMZbnCZw>