I agree, however I have no doubt it will be added soon since this is also a limitation for NetBSD usage of NPF as well.. more my point, +1 to EOL'ing older solutions that are no longer maintained or scalable. One of the things that I myself consider a 'feature' of Dragonfly is less old junk running in kernel space (both important on a security and stability stand point) and a less bulky userland.
On 22 January 2011 19:23, Francois Tigeot <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 06:43:19PM +1100, Edward O'Callaghan wrote: >> From what I have seen of NPF and how it is more in-line with some of >> DF's MP goals and is very neatly written for MP, I would say it would >> make a worthy PF successor. > > I agree NPF seems very promising; howewer it has no support for IPv6 > yet. > This is a really big show-stopper: we're only weeks (days ?) from > depletion of the central IPv4 pool, and after that APNIC and RIPE pools > will almost certainly not last until the end of the year. > > Without IPv6 support, NPF would be almost useless. > > -- > Francois Tigeot > -- -- Edward O'Callaghan http://www.auroraux.org/ eocallaghan at auroraux dot org --- () ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail /\ - against microsoft attachments
