Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 06:34:21 +1100 (Australia/ACT) From: Darren Reed <avalon@coombs.anu.edu.au> To: nick@netdot.net (Nicholas Esborn) Cc: hununu@netcabo.pt (Bruno Afonso), freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: The way forward Message-ID: <200302051934.GAA12228@caligula.anu.edu.au> In-Reply-To: <20030205182601.GA59212@carbon.berkeley.netdot.net> from "Nicholas Esborn" at Feb 05, 2003 10:26:01 AM
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In some mail from Nicholas Esborn, sie said: > > Here here on pf envy. It's not well tested yet, but pf's architecture > and capabilities look better than both ipf and ipfw. pf has no architecture - just go read the code and you'll see what I mean. > > Where did you read that? AltQ is not natively implemented in 5.0... > >the AltQ kernel > > patches are available, but I'd love ipf + Altq integration. At the > > moment, I envy pf + altq on openbsd. I haven't looked at altq at all, but if someone wants to do some work on making ipf work with altq in a similar manner to pf, it would be well received by myself. Darren To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200302051934.GAA12228>