Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 14:38:01 +0400 From: Slawa Olhovchenkov <slw@zxy.spb.ru> To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ipfilter(4) needs maintainer Message-ID: <20130415103801.GA21132@zxy.spb.ru> In-Reply-To: <951943801.20130415141536@serebryakov.spb.ru> References: <20130411201805.GD76816@FreeBSD.org> <20130414160648.GD96431@in-addr.com> <36562.1365960622.5652758659450863616@ffe10.ukr.net> <201304150025.07337.Mark.Martinec%2Bfreebsd@ijs.si> <951943801.20130415141536@serebryakov.spb.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 02:15:36PM +0400, Lev Serebryakov wrote: > >> Yes! This is the most clever thought in this thread. Why we need 3 > >> firewalls? Two packet filters it's excess too. We have two packet filters: > >> one with excellent syntax and functionality but with outdated bandwidth > >> control mechanism (aka ALTQ); another - with nice traffic > >> shaper/prioritization (dummynet)/classification (diffused) but with > >> complicated implementation in not trivial tasks. May be the next step > >> will be discussion about one packet filter in the system?.. > > MM> ... and as far as I can tell none of them is currently usable > MM> on an IPv6-only FreeBSD (like protecting a host with sshguard), > MM> none of them supports stateful NAT64, nor IPv6 prefix translation :( > IPv6 prefix translation?! AGAIN!? FML. I've thought, that IPv6 will > render all that NAT nightmare to void. I hope, IPv6 prefix translation > will not be possible never ever! You disallow anonymization? NAT do anonymisation also.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20130415103801.GA21132>