From owner-freebsd-security Wed Feb 5 11:34:31 2003 Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C31237B401 for ; Wed, 5 Feb 2003 11:34:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from caligula.anu.edu.au (caligula.anu.edu.au [150.203.224.42]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7648743FB9 for ; Wed, 5 Feb 2003 11:34:25 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from avalon@caligula.anu.edu.au) Received: (from avalon@localhost) by caligula.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA12228; Thu, 6 Feb 2003 06:34:21 +1100 (EST) From: Darren Reed Message-Id: <200302051934.GAA12228@caligula.anu.edu.au> Subject: Re: The way forward To: nick@netdot.net (Nicholas Esborn) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 06:34:21 +1100 (Australia/ACT) Cc: hununu@netcabo.pt (Bruno Afonso), freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: <20030205182601.GA59212@carbon.berkeley.netdot.net> from "Nicholas Esborn" at Feb 05, 2003 10:26:01 AM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL1] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org 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