Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 15:33:33 -0400 From: dex <djdexter@gmail.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: per-interface default routes? Message-ID: <c357d2a10703151233w193232cbmef6993f7a3342bef@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <8e10486b0703141410n63874da3lf4b4b2ba5fe90d87@mail.gmail.com> References: <Pine.LNX.4.43.0703141222470.20708@hymn01.u.washington.edu> <0A8464C8-EC5B-4276-8EDC-E5348F99806D@messier.com> <8e10486b0703141250i5e016058pbc5f6370144fa5c1@mail.gmail.com> <20070314215033.E29424@chylonia.3miasto.net> <8e10486b0703141410n63874da3lf4b4b2ba5fe90d87@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 3/14/07, Alexandre Biancalana <biancalana@gmail.com> wrote: > On 3/14/07, Wojciech Puchar <wojtek@tensor.gdynia.pl> wrote: > > yes. but ipfw is most universal having all needed things at one place. > > firewalling, routing, shaping, etc. > > PF too. is all at same place. And pf has nat built-in, so it runs in kernel space.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?c357d2a10703151233w193232cbmef6993f7a3342bef>