Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Fri, 1 Aug 2014 14:14:36 +0100
From:      krad <kraduk@gmail.com>
To:        Dan Busarow <dan@buildingonline.com>
Cc:        FreeBSD Questions <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>
Subject:   Re: Future of pf / firewall in FreeBSD ? - does it have one ?
Message-ID:  <CALfReydsjStmyeEsJjZMdNokdD+=g0gtPg8esKzf40UMnXARag@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <53DB9017.3000304@buildingonline.com>
References:  <53C706C9.6090506@com.jkkn.dk> <6326AB9D-C19A-434B-9681-380486C037E2@lastsummer.de> <53CB4736.90809@bluerosetech.com> <201407200939020335.0017641F@smtp.24cl.home> <788274E2-7D66-45D9-89F6-81E8C2615D14@lastsummer.de> <201407201230590265.00B479C4@smtp.24cl.home> <20140729103512.GC89995@FreeBSD.org> <53DA304E.6020105@herveybayaustralia.com.au> <20140731134147.GH2402@glebius.int.ru> <CALfReyerXQm6ehhtKXcJ9XD5fr=0LBShtD8EAUjd9p07xcQvjw@mail.gmail.com> <53DB9017.3000304@buildingonline.com>

Next in thread | Previous in thread | Raw E-Mail | Index | Archive | Help
that was never the problem, it was always tricky building stateful rulesets
with nat. From what i remember it was due to the state stable getting
parsed to early ie before the natting rule if your ruleset wasnt 100% puka.
It caught quite a few people out who i knew. It was over 12 years ago
though so my memory is hazy on it, but as soon as i tried pf i found it
much easier, so didn't look back.


On 1 August 2014 14:03, Dan Busarow <dan@buildingonline.com> wrote:

>
> On 8/1/14, 1:39 AM, krad wrote:
>
>> I always found natting in ipfw rather awkward and harder than in pf.
>> Looking at the man page it doesnt seem to have changed. I should probably
>> give it another go though as it has been about 10 years now
>>
>
> Couldn't be much easier than the way it works now
>
> e.g.
>
> firewall_enable="YES"
> firewall_type="OPEN"
> natd_enable="YES"
> natd_interface="em0"
> natd_flags="-s -m -u"
>
> All of the builtin rulesets know about NAT
>
> My home network has two internal nets each with it's own wifi AP and the
> above handles it.
>
> natd_interface is your outside facing interface.
>
> Dan
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>> On 31 July 2014 14:41, Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@freebsd.org> wrote:
>>
>>  On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 10:02:22PM +1000, Da Rock wrote:
>>> D> Without diminishing your efforts so far, what do you think about
>>> D> pitching all efforts into IPFW to combine effort and reduce overhead
>>> of
>>> D> maintaining separate firewalls in the core? Is there an advantage to
>>> D> having our own pf?
>>>
>>> Is there any disadvantage keeping it? It is a plugin. It is optional
>>> and loadable. I removed most additions to the network stack that live
>>> outside netpfil/pf.
>>>
>>> Some people like it and use it.
>>>
>>> It is also the only tool to configure ALTQ now.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Totus tuus, Glebius.
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
>>> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
>>> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "
>>> freebsd-questions-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
>>>
>>>  _______________________________________________
>> freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
>> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
>> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-
>> unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
>>
>>  _______________________________________________
> freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-
> unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
>



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <http://docs.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CALfReydsjStmyeEsJjZMdNokdD+=g0gtPg8esKzf40UMnXARag>