Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 07:42:46 +0200 From: Andreas Nilsson <andrnils@gmail.com> To: Julian Elischer <julian@freebsd.org> Cc: Maxim Khitrov <max@mxcrypt.com>, Current FreeBSD <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>, FreeBSD Mailing List <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Future of pf / firewall in FreeBSD ? - does it have one ? Message-ID: <CAPS9%2BSsancf-jwgB1duKFZ3ZU0SiY-47xucc9FEaqYicPbT%2Bcw@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <53CC87D2.1000601@freebsd.org> References: <53C706C9.6090506@com.jkkn.dk> <20140718110645.GN87212@FreeBSD.org> <20140718151255.b3e677d9.gerrit.kuehn@aei.mpg.de> <CALfReycHtSi5GXgFZihrTsgDG6wc-ZfkYmQu7AjQmOKdeXntrA@mail.gmail.com> <CAEeRwNV3bJrM5KrGObZtNvSY1mVMW9jz2M4t2m2SSq_vvWmZ5w@mail.gmail.com> <CALfReyfWJd7YOi_Y8Mq=Q-xndLueF7vU5xwc1w_YGyM1a9DQZA@mail.gmail.com> <53CA2D39.6000204@sasktel.net> <CALfReyfkZY1ZDNohP6npRVQfjBK2M6j59R8idUGazr1yJDX3Jg@mail.gmail.com> <20140720123916.GV96250@e-new.0x20.net> <CAJcQMWe9=3PvOhfT8N-78N04A0u3OvkjOd-HPCiBUcJFZZb0-g@mail.gmail.com> <20140720134133.1d30f725@kan> <CAPS9%2BStPJRVSFLjpxgVEewT9fwHHFxw=qODAYa=uOAzb-V=v2Q@mail.gmail.com> <53CC87D2.1000601@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 5:24 AM, Julian Elischer <julian@freebsd.org> wrote: > On 7/21/14, 7:27 AM, Andreas Nilsson wrote: > >> On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 7:41 PM, Alexander Kabaev <kabaev@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> On Sun, 20 Jul 2014 10:15:36 -0400 >>> Maxim Khitrov <max@mxcrypt.com> wrote: >>> >>> On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 8:39 AM, Lars Engels <lars.engels@0x20.net> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 12:18:54PM +0100, krad wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> all of that is true, but you are missing the point. Having two >>>>>> versions of pf on the bsd's at the user level, is a bad thing. It >>>>>> confuses people, which puts them off. Its a classic case of divide >>>>>> an conquer for other platforms. I really like the idea of the >>>>>> openpf version, that has been mentioned in this thread. It would >>>>>> be awesome if it ended up as a supported linux thing as well, so >>>>>> the world could be rid of iptables. However i guess thats just an >>>>>> unrealistic dream >>>>>> >>>>> And you don't seem to get the point that _someone_ has to do the >>>>> work. No one has stepped up so far, so nothing is going to change. >>>>> >>>> Gleb believes that the majority of FreeBSD users don't want the >>>> updated syntax, among other changes, from the more recent pf versions. >>>> Developers who share his opinion are not going to volunteer to do the >>>> work. This discussion is about showing this belief to be wrong, which >>>> is the first step in the process. >>>> >>>> In my opinion, the way forward is to forget (at least temporarily) the >>>> SMP changes, bring pf in sync with OpenBSD, put a policy in place to >>>> follow their releases as closely as possible, and then try to >>>> reintroduce all the SMP work. I think the latter has to be done >>>> upstream, otherwise it'll always be a story of diverging codebases. >>>> Furthermore, if FreeBSD developers were willing to spend some time >>>> improving pf performance on OpenBSD, then Henning and other OpenBSD >>>> developers might be more receptive to changes that make the porting >>>> process easier. >>>> >>> I am one person whose opinion Gleb got completely right - I could not >>> care less about new syntax nor about how close or how far are we from >>> OpenBSD, as long as pf works for my purposes and it does. This far >>> into the thread and somebody has yet to provide a comprehensive list of >>> the benefits that we allegedly miss, or to come up with the real >>> benchmark result to substantiate the performance claims. >>> >>> Focusing on disproving anything Gleb might be believing in on the >>> matter, while an interesting undertaking, does nothing to give you new >>> pf you supposedly want. Doing the work and bringing it all the way to >>> will completeness for commit - does. >>> >>> It was stated repeatedly by multiple people that FreeBSD's network >>> stack is way too different from OpenBSD, we support features >>> OpenBSD doesn't and vice versa, vimage is a good example, which throws a >>> giant wrench into the plan of following OpenBSD 'as closely as >>> possible', even as the expense of throwing away all of the SMP work >>> done in pf to date. >>> >>> I like vimage, don't get me wrong, but it also seems to have lost >> traction. >> If vimage is the only thing holding a pf import back there ought to be >> some >> discussion about which is a priority. >> > As one involved with Vimage, I get feedback all the time that lets me know > it's in really heavy use in some pretty interesting commercial situations. > It HAS lst some traction in terms of added work, but that's because it's > solid enough for people to use. > In the situations where it's being used, it's a game changer and rhe > conversation goes something like: > > "hey vimage and pf don't work together.. guess that makes the firewall > decision easy.. use ipfw" > > Good to know! > >> Also, the openbsd stack has some essential features missing in freebsd, >> like mpls and md5 auth for bgp sessions. >> >> /A >> _______________________________________________ >> 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?CAPS9%2BSsancf-jwgB1duKFZ3ZU0SiY-47xucc9FEaqYicPbT%2Bcw>