From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Dec 31 11:27:25 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 9115A16A4CE for ; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 11:27:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from stratus.mercurycloud.net (stratus.mercurycloud.net [64.246.167.156]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6229C43D1F for ; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 11:27:23 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from lists-wp@mercurycloud.net) Received: from localhost (localhost.mercurycloud.net [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.mercurycloud.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D67781; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 11:27:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from stratus.mercurycloud.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (stratus.mercurycloud.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 08221-07; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 11:27:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.41] (h-67-101-0-187.STTNWAHO.dynamic.covad.net [67.101.0.187]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by stratus.mercurycloud.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 205C46B; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 11:27:19 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v609) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: <57E9F492-3BC7-11D8-98F0-000A95DBBE34@mercurycloud.net> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Will Prater Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 11:27:16 -0800 To: fbsd_user@a1poweruser.com X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.609) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at mail.mercurycloud.net X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 tagged_above=-999.0 required=6.3 tests= X-Spam-Level: cc: questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ipf / pf availability in 4.9 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 19:27:25 -0000 On Dec 31, 2003, at 5:12 AM, fbsd_user wrote: > The post you are replying to tells you pf has been ported to FBSD. Yes, and my question was how to get a port to 4.9. I am aware of the port being available for 5.0, 5.1. I would like to know if anyone has gotten it to run on 4.9 and what patches were necessary. Thanks > All you had to do is go look for it in the port collection your > self, > here is the direct link. > > http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/ports.cgi?query=pf&stype=all&release=5.1- > CURRENT%2Fi386 > > > pf_freebsd-2.00_1 > OpenBSD pf as a kldmodule > Maintained by: max@love2party.net > Also listed in: ipv6 > Description : Sources : Package : Changes : Download > > > http://pf4freebsd.love2party.net/index.html > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-freebsd-questions@freebsd.org > [mailto:owner-freebsd-questions@freebsd.org]On Behalf Of Will Prater > Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 2003 2:59 AM > To: questions@freebsd.org > Subject: Re: ipf / pf availability in 4.9 > > List, > > Anyone know if there is a way to get PF to port to FreeBSD 4.9? > > Thanks > > > On Dec 30, 2003, at 7:26 PM, 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" >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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" >> >> > --will > > _______________________________________________ > 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" > > _______________________________________________ > 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" > > --will