Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 14:15:36 +0400 From: Lev Serebryakov <lev@FreeBSD.org> To: Mark Martinec <Mark.Martinec+freebsd@ijs.si> Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org, current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ipfilter(4) needs maintainer Message-ID: <951943801.20130415141536@serebryakov.spb.ru> In-Reply-To: <201304150025.07337.Mark.Martinec%2Bfreebsd@ijs.si> References: <20130411201805.GD76816@FreeBSD.org> <20130414160648.GD96431@in-addr.com> <36562.1365960622.5652758659450863616@ffe10.ukr.net> <201304150025.07337.Mark.Martinec%2Bfreebsd@ijs.si>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hello, Mark. You wrote 15 =D0=B0=D0=BF=D1=80=D0=B5=D0=BB=D1=8F 2013 =D0=B3., 2:25:07: >> Yes! This is the most clever thought in this thread. Why we need 3 >> firewalls? Two packet filters it's excess too. We have two packet filter= s: >> one with excellent syntax and functionality but with outdated bandwidth >> control mechanism (aka ALTQ); another - with nice traffic >> shaper/prioritization (dummynet)/classification (diffused) but with >> complicated implementation in not trivial tasks. May be the next step >> will be discussion about one packet filter in the system?.. MM> ... and as far as I can tell none of them is currently usable MM> on an IPv6-only FreeBSD (like protecting a host with sshguard), MM> none of them supports stateful NAT64, nor IPv6 prefix translation :( IPv6 prefix translation?! AGAIN!? FML. I've thought, that IPv6 will render all that NAT nightmare to void. I hope, IPv6 prefix translation will not be possible never ever! --=20 // Black Lion AKA Lev Serebryakov <lev@FreeBSD.org>
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?951943801.20130415141536>