Date: Sat, 19 Jun 1999 23:14:10 -0400 (EDT) From: "Brian F. Feldman" <green@unixhelp.org> To: Julian Elischer <julian@whistle.com> Cc: Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@flood.ping.uio.no>, Doug Rabson <dfr@nlsystems.com>, Ruslan Ermilov <ru@ucb.crimea.ua>, ugen@xonix.com, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, luigi@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Firewalls (was Re: Introduction) Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.10.9906192312480.11791-100000@janus.syracuse.net> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.95.990619184950.13715C-100000@current1.whistle.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 19 Jun 1999, Julian Elischer wrote: > As a contributor to ipfw, notice that I will be sticking my oar into the > water when it comes to deleting it unless I'm very sure that the ipf stuff > is better. Unless you're Danish you don't just get to delete bits of the > tree without a lot of agreement, especially from those who are working on > it.. (in this case luigi and I would both be extrememly interested). Deleting IPFW would be a _long_ time from now, if at all. What it looks like now is: 1. making ipf and ipfw equivalent in functionality 2. cleaning up both 3. MAYBE starting a brand new firewall project I wasn't planning on trying to rip something out from under anyone :) > > > On Sat, 19 Jun 1999, Brian F. Feldman wrote: > > > On 19 Jun 1999, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote: > > > > > "Brian F. Feldman" <green@unixhelp.org> writes: > > > > It might be worth (discussion of) making ipfilter the firewall of > > > > choice for 4.0. There would of course be rule conversion > > > > scripts/programs (ipfw->ipf(5)), and ipfilter would be converted to > > > > a KLD, cruft removed (I'm going to work on these), and ipfilter KLD > > > > support (currently options IPFILTER_LKM) made a non-option. It seems > > > > that our pretty proprietary ipfw is no longer a good idea. > > > > > > If ipfilter can to everything ipfw can (judging from ipf(5), it can) > > > and you even manage to keep an ipfw(8) command around so those who > > > want kan keep using the old syntax still can, then I for one have no > > > objections. > > > > > > Rewriting ipfw rules to ipfilter rules on the fly should be trivial; a > > > simple Perl script should be sufficient. > > > > Not quite as trivial as you think. ipfw and ipf are completely backwards when it comes > > to rule order: in ipfw, the first rule matched takes effect; in ipf, the last rule matched > > takes effect. Plus, ipf doesn't have rule numbers (but there's similar functionailty.) > > If you think you can get used to them both enough to tackle this, I'll handle other > > things, and we can have a working replacement for crufty old ipfw. Note that Luigi's > > extra ipfw functionality and my extra ipfw functionality _will_ be wanted in ipf > > before everyone is necessarily willing to switch. I have a feeling there will be some > > holdouts that, even if ipfw is removed, they'll MFS (merge from stable) ipfw back just > > because they want to keep the old way. Ipfw could be dead for 4.0-RELEASE, as I see it > > now. More discussion is, however, necessary. > > > > > > > > DES > > > -- > > > Dag-Erling Smorgrav - des@flood.ping.uio.no > > > > > > > Brian Fundakowski Feldman _ __ ___ ____ ___ ___ ___ > > green@FreeBSD.org _ __ ___ | _ ) __| \ > > FreeBSD: The Power to Serve! _ __ | _ \._ \ |) | > > http://www.FreeBSD.org/ _ |___/___/___/ > > > > > > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > > with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message > > > > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message > Brian Fundakowski Feldman _ __ ___ ____ ___ ___ ___ green@FreeBSD.org _ __ ___ | _ ) __| \ FreeBSD: The Power to Serve! _ __ | _ \._ \ |) | http://www.FreeBSD.org/ _ |___/___/___/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.10.9906192312480.11791-100000>