On 05 Jun 2003 09:25:20 -0700, Dennis wrote: > openbsd-pf is a good firewall. But as a bandwidth management tool it's > quite inferior. Priority queuing is an archaic, inferior technology, > if you can call it a technology. > > The subject here is "pf/altq" on a fast link. How does it perform on a > gigabit wire with stats gathering and limits configured for 5000 > hosts? How does granular, duration controlled bursting work? does it > automatically pace traffic to reduce queue depths when a point of > congestion is reached? > > There's nothing wrong with an open-source firewall. But an ISP need a > separate bandwidth management box. Anyone that thinks they can do it > with the free stuff is settling for a trivial solution that will cost > them in the long run. The ethical thing to do, when someone asks about > using pf/altq for a high-volume business, is to tell them the truth. > They need something a bit better.
Dear Mr. Baasch, Your emails to the pf mailing list have been very unbecoming. As president and CEO of a company that competes with pf and altq, I would expect you to be gracious and polite when comparing your product to pf; your behavior here reflects how you will treat your customers, and if you are trying to win converts it is easier to change moods than minds. Instead you have been hostile and insulting, so I can only assume that you are hostile and insulting to your customers as well. As a result I not only plan to continue using pf and altq, but to warn my friends and acquaintances that not only is Emerging Technologies, Inc. afraid of pf, but that Emerging Technologies, Inc. treats its potential customers poorly. If they ask I will explain to them what you have said on this list. I will also direct them to the pf archives, so they can read your words for themselves. I would like to say I am sorry that my only contact with Emerging Technologies, Inc. has been so disappointing. Yours Sincerely, Kyle R. Hofmann
