For God sake, OpenBSD still there
Be Puffy!
Em ter, 2 de abr de 2019 às 03:51, Constantine A. Murenin
escreveu:
> On 2019-W14-1 19:12 -0700, Jordan Geoghegan wrote:
> > Realistically, we need to move to the one true firewall-- iptables!
> > Ideally, OpenBSD needs a firewall thats 'web scale' t
Op 2-4-2019 om 04:12 schreef Jordan Geoghegan:
On 4/1/19 9:03 AM, Kevin Chadwick wrote:
On 4/1/19 3:18 PM, Mateusz Guzik wrote:
While I support pf removal, I don't think bpf is the way to go.
FreeBSD just removed their pf [1] so the code is up for grabs and you
can import it with one weird tr
On 2019-W14-1 19:12 -0700, Jordan Geoghegan wrote:
> Realistically, we need to move to the one true firewall-- iptables!
> Ideally, OpenBSD needs a firewall thats 'web scale' that can be
> administered from a PHP web based frontend that uses JSON message
> passing for clustering and failover.
Don
On 4/1/19 9:03 AM, Kevin Chadwick wrote:
On 4/1/19 3:18 PM, Mateusz Guzik wrote:
While I support pf removal, I don't think bpf is the way to go.
FreeBSD just removed their pf [1] so the code is up for grabs and you
can import it with one weird trick.
[1] https://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/s
On Mon, Apr 01, 2019 at 05:31:54AM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> Todd C. Miller wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 01 Apr 2019 07:01:03 +0200, Claudio Jeker wrote:
> >
> > > There have been internal discussions about OpenBSD also removing the pf
> > > packet filter after the upcoming 6.5 release. Instead a sw
code Who needs
toggle switches anyway?
-Original Message-
From: Alexander Nasonov
Sent: Monday, April 1, 2019 1:38 PM
To: Eichert, Diana
Cc: tech@openbsd.org
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Removing PF
Eichert, Diana wrote:
> I wrote a vax BPF jit as a simple exercize some ti
Eichert, Diana wrote:
> I wrote a vax BPF jit as a simple exercize some time ago, so all
> you really need now is to implement vax-to-${ARCH} jit on an MD
> basis. This should be very easy to do as long as BPF does not get
> extended to use floating-point values.
I'm afraid you have to rewrite it
Op 1-4-2019 om 18:03 schreef Kevin Chadwick:
On 4/1/19 3:18 PM, Mateusz Guzik wrote:
While I support pf removal, I don't think bpf is the way to go.
FreeBSD just removed their pf [1] so the code is up for grabs and you
can import it with one weird trick.
[1] https://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail
I thought you were going to deal with MD issues by adding support for SIMH into
6.6?
-Original Message-
From: owner-t...@openbsd.org On Behalf Of Miod Vallat
Sent: Monday, April 1, 2019 7:04 AM
To: tech@openbsd.org
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Removing PF
> Will the bpf JIT changes be d
On 4/1/19 3:18 PM, Mateusz Guzik wrote:
> While I support pf removal, I don't think bpf is the way to go.
>
> FreeBSD just removed their pf [1] so the code is up for grabs and you
> can import it with one weird trick.
>
> [1]
> https://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/svn-src-projects/2019-April/0133
Will authpf be around?
On 4/1/19, Claudio Jeker wrote:
> There have been internal discussions about OpenBSD also removing the pf
> packet filter after the upcoming 6.5 release. Instead a switch to
> using David Gwynne's new bpf filter will happen.
> The benefits outweigh the drawbacks and the missing features will be
>
On Mon, Apr 01, 2019 at 01:04:19PM -, Miod Vallat wrote:
>
> > Will the bpf JIT changes be done in time for 6.6? I have no doubt
> > that "pfctl -p /dev/bfp" can be made to work in time but for a truly
> > performant firewall we will need bpf JIT.
>
> I wrote a vax BPF jit as a simple exerci
> Will the bpf JIT changes be done in time for 6.6? I have no doubt
> that "pfctl -p /dev/bfp" can be made to work in time but for a truly
> performant firewall we will need bpf JIT.
I wrote a vax BPF jit as a simple exercize some time ago, so all you
really need now is to implement vax-to-${AR
On 2019/04/01 07:01, Claudio Jeker wrote:
> There have been internal discussions about OpenBSD also removing the pf
> packet filter after the upcoming 6.5 release. Instead a switch to
> using David Gwynne's new bpf filter will happen.
> The benefits outweigh the drawbacks and the missing features w
Hi Claudio,
Claudio Jeker wrote on Mon, Apr 01, 2019 at 07:01:03AM +0200:
> There have been internal discussions about OpenBSD also removing the pf
> packet filter after the upcoming 6.5 release. Instead a switch to
> using David Gwynne's new bpf filter will happen.
> The benefits outweigh the dr
Todd C. Miller wrote:
> On Mon, 01 Apr 2019 07:01:03 +0200, Claudio Jeker wrote:
>
> > There have been internal discussions about OpenBSD also removing the pf
> > packet filter after the upcoming 6.5 release. Instead a switch to
> > using David Gwynne's new bpf filter will happen.
> > The benefi
On Mon, 01 Apr 2019 07:01:03 +0200, Claudio Jeker wrote:
> There have been internal discussions about OpenBSD also removing the pf
> packet filter after the upcoming 6.5 release. Instead a switch to
> using David Gwynne's new bpf filter will happen.
> The benefits outweigh the drawbacks and the mi
Yeah... i would love you all to give affect to that... +1 from me
claudioabout time!...
Thanks for articulating what i have been thinking all this time...
1/4/2019 will be a historic turning point for us
On Monday, 1 April 2019, Claudio Jeker wrote:
> There have been internal discussions
Den mån 1 apr. 2019 kl 07:30 skrev Ian McWilliam <
i.mcwill...@westernsydney.edu.au>:
> "peeing on, or even integration into baby mulching
> machines or atomic bombs to be dropped on Australia"
> That's a lot of missing features to implement in one release cycle.
>
>
I would like the license t
r
Sent: Monday, 1 April 2019 4:01 PM
To: tech@openbsd.org
Subject: Removing PF
There have been internal discussions about OpenBSD also removing the pf
packet filter after the upcoming 6.5 release. Instead a switch to
using David Gwynne's new bpf filter will happen.
The benefits outweigh t
There have been internal discussions about OpenBSD also removing the pf
packet filter after the upcoming 6.5 release. Instead a switch to
using David Gwynne's new bpf filter will happen.
The benefits outweigh the drawbacks and the missing features will be
readily implemented in time for the 6.6 rel
22 matches
Mail list logo
