> Firewalls should firewall, not serve services. Why not? This isn't a corporate HQ where the box comes under heavy load, it's my home firewall/gateway/file server/development box; there's no reason it can't perform all those roles (other than pf being unable to shape download traffic).
> I'm sure I'm part of a large majority of list members who would be > thrilled to see this topic end. While there's no harm in asking for a > feature expansion, and a discussion about the technical feasibility of > it, when it devolves into accusations of "zealot speak", it's time to > move on. There was one accusation of zealot speak, because the comment made no sense whatsoever, and he has still not justified it. For some reason most people who are replying to this thread seem to be looking for any reason why this feature request should be ignored; it's not necessary, it's not needed, pay $20000 if you want it done, someone mentioned "zealot speak", download shaping isn't needed on firewalls, etc.. Why the resistance? The other two major firewalls iptables and IPFW can do it, why can't PF?
