i thought the nat in ipfw is as elegant as in iptables :)
but it is good to know that because different opinion actually is a chance to
improve.
and why not share with us why the ipfw nat is cumbersome or how to be not
cumbersome.
> -Original Message-
> From: owner-freebsd-curr...@freeb
FWIW, and while I still wonder why we need three packet filters …
There is yet another firewall implementation in NetBSD:
http://www.netbsd.org/~rmind/npf/
It seems to be more portable, it is thought with SMP-friendliness in mind and
according to a EuroBSDCon talk ports for FreeBSD and Illumos
On 2014-07-21 09:57, bycn82 wrote:
> There is no doubt that PF is a really good firewall, But we should noticed
> that there is an ipfw which is originally from FreeBSD while PF is from
> OpenBSD.
>
> If there is a requirement that PF can meet but ipfw cannot, then I think it
> is better to imp
Building some out-of-tree software with a rather long set of compiler
flags, I can reliably get our clang to crash.
The system is current as of r267362 (June 11), with clang reporting itself
as FreeBSD clang version 3.4.1 (tags/RELEASE_34/dot1-final 208032)
20140512
Target: x86_64-unknown-freeb
Hi Julian,
On 21 Jul 2014, at 05:15, Julian Elischer wrote:
> Most people I talk to just use ipfw and couldn't care whether pf lives or
> dies. They have simple requirements and almost any filter would suffice. I
> haven't found anything I'd want to use pf for that ipfw doesn't allow me to
> Last week, I created a custom ISO from the latest -CURRENT sources which
> contained an EFI image that is bootable on my MacBook Pro.
> Both installation and booting from this new FreeBSD 11 EFI system goes
> without any problems.
Somewhat off-topic, but can you detail how you did this? I've b
On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 12:56:42PM -0700, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I like it! It's a useful command line API.
>
> Eventually people will realise there needs to be a more formal method
> for describing/controlling the underlying framework, but I leave that
> up to bapt to figure out and .. we
There is no doubt that PF is a really good firewall, But we should noticed that
there is an ipfw which is originally from FreeBSD while PF is from OpenBSD.
If there is a requirement that PF can meet but ipfw cannot, then I think it is
better to improve the ipfw. But if you just like the PF style
On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 8:56 AM, wrote:
> > > > Also, the openbsd stack has some essential features missing in
> freebsd,
> > > > like mpls and md5 auth for bgp sessions.
> > >
> > > I use MD5 auth for BGP sessions every day (and have been doing so for
> > > several releases). One could definitel
On 20.07.2014 18:15, Maxim Khitrov wrote:
> In my opinion, the way forward is to forget (at least temporarily) the
> SMP changes, bring pf in sync with OpenBSD, put a policy in place to
> follow their releases as closely as possible, and then try to
> reintroduce all the SMP work. I think the latte
Ignore previous, here's the right core:
borg.lerctr.org dumped core - see /var/crash/vmcore.6
Mon Jul 21 03:13:37 CDT 2014
FreeBSD borg.lerctr.org 11.0-CURRENT FreeBSD 11.0-CURRENT #54 r268932M: Sun Jul
20 19:26:23 CDT 2014 r...@borg.lerctr.org:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/VT-LER amd64
panic: Mos
Got the following panic this morning
borg.lerctr.org dumped core - see /var/crash/vmcore.5
Sun Jul 20 03:28:12 CDT 2014
FreeBSD borg.lerctr.org 11.0-CURRENT FreeBSD 11.0-CURRENT #50 r268894M: Sat Jul
19 18:06:08 CDT 2014 r...@borg.lerctr.org:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/VT-LER amd64
panic: s
On 2014-07-21 00:24, Florian Smeets wrote:
On 21/07/14 01:46, Steven Hartland wrote:
- Original Message - From: "Larry Rosenman"
To: "Steven Hartland"
Cc: ;
Sent: Monday, July 21, 2014 12:22 AM
Subject: Re: [ZFS][PANIC] Solaris Assert/zio.c:2548
On 2014-07-20 18:21, Steven Hartland
13 matches
Mail list logo
