Paul Webster wrote:
> I am aware this is a much discussed subject since the upgrade of PF,
> I believe the final decision was that too many users are used to the old
> style pf and an upgrade to the new syntax would cause too much confusion.
I don't buy that. Think of a confusion in a year of two
On Nov 20, 2012 9:44 AM, "Mark Martinec"
wrote:
>
> Paul Webster wrote:
> > I am aware this is a much discussed subject since the upgrade of PF,
> > I believe the final decision was that too many users are used to the old
> > style pf and an upgrade to the new syntax would cause too much
confusion
Mark,
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 03:43:17PM +0100, Mark Martinec wrote:
M> For one thing, I'm desperately awaiting NAT64 support (the 'af-to'
M> translation rule in newer pf (5.1?), committed on 2011-10).
Backport this exact feature to FreeBSD and send patch.
M> Other: packet normalization (scrub
On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 8:56 AM, Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
> Mark,
>
> On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 03:43:17PM +0100, Mark Martinec wrote:
> M> For one thing, I'm desperately awaiting NAT64 support (the 'af-to'
> M> translation rule in newer pf (5.1?), committed on 2011-10).
>
> Backport this exact featu
On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 03:44:13PM +0100, Ermal Lu?i wrote:
E> Cherry-picking would be when tehre is reasonable similarities.
E> Also another argument to do this would be simplicity on locking as well as
E> i told you when you started the changes.
You were wrong. OpenBSD doesn't move towards SMP m
On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 3:52 PM, Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 03:44:13PM +0100, Ermal Lu?i wrote:
> E> Cherry-picking would be when tehre is reasonable similarities.
> E> Also another argument to do this would be simplicity on locking as well
> as
> E> i told you when you starte
I only really need one question answered in honesty;
I personally think that by forking our own version of PF we have
essentially made something totally different to what everyone wants to
use. Which is fine, but because of that development of new features have
dropped behind.
If we had k
Paul,
On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 02:11:32PM -, Paul Webster wrote:
P> I only really need one question answered in honesty;
P>
P> I personally think that by forking our own version of PF we have
P> essentially made something totally different to what everyone wants to
P> use. Which is fine,
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 10:00 AM, Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
> Paul,
>
> On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 02:11:32PM -, Paul Webster wrote:
> P> I only really need one question answered in honesty;
> P>
> P> I personally think that by forking our own version of PF we have
> P> essentially made something to
Forward notice:
I sent this to freebsd-pf originally and did not CC -current, but as the
issue would affect current and the more opinions the better... I have sent
it here too.
-- Cheers, daemon
-- original message
Good day all,
I am aware this is a much discussed subject since the upgra
2012/11/20 Paul Webster :
> I am aware this is a much discussed subject since the upgrade of PF, I
> believe the final decision was that to many users are used to the old
> style pf and an upgrade to the new syntax would cause to much confusion.
But a change like this is expected in a new major br
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 11:43:04AM +0100, Olivier Smedts wrote:
> 2012/11/20 Paul Webster :
> > I am aware this is a much discussed subject since the upgrade of PF, I
> > believe the final decision was that to many users are used to the old
> > style pf and an upgrade to the new syntax would cause
2012/11/20 Gary Palmer :
> On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 11:43:04AM +0100, Olivier Smedts wrote:
>> 2012/11/20 Paul Webster :
>> > I am aware this is a much discussed subject since the upgrade of PF, I
>> > believe the final decision was that to many users are used to the old
>> > style pf and an upgrade
Olivier Smedts wrote:
2012/11/20 Gary Palmer :
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 11:43:04AM +0100, Olivier Smedts wrote:
2012/11/20 Paul Webster :
I am aware this is a much discussed subject since the upgrade of PF, I
believe the final decision was that to many users are used to the old
style pf and an
Am Tue, 20 Nov 2012 13:24:49 +0100
schrieb Olivier Smedts :
> Another question : how did OpenBSD managed this change ?
AFAIK, their users are used to stuff just disappearing or changing.
Remember that pf started as a replacement to ipf and the rulesets had
to be rewritten anyway.
_
On 11/20/12 11:43, Olivier Smedts wrote:
> 2012/11/20 Paul Webster :
>> I am aware this is a much discussed subject since the upgrade of PF, I
>> believe the final decision was that to many users are used to the old
>> style pf and an upgrade to the new syntax would cause to much confusion.
>
> Bu
On 11/20/2012 10:27 AM, O. Hartmann wrote:
On 11/20/12 11:43, Olivier Smedts wrote:
2012/11/20 Paul Webster :
I am aware this is a much discussed subject since the upgrade of PF, I
believe the final decision was that to many users are used to the old
style pf and an upgrade to the new syntax wo
20.11.2012, 18:34, "Chuck Burns" :
> On 11/20/2012 10:27 AM, O. Hartmann wrote:
>
>> On 11/20/12 11:43, Olivier Smedts wrote:
>>> 2012/11/20 Paul Webster :
I am aware this is a much discussed subject since the upgrade of PF, I
believe the final decision was that to many users are us
On 11/20/2012 10:52 AM, Aldis Berjoza wrote:
20.11.2012, 18:34, "Chuck Burns" :
On 11/20/2012 10:27 AM, O. Hartmann wrote:
On 11/20/12 11:43, Olivier Smedts wrote:
2012/11/20 Paul Webster :
I am aware this is a much discussed subject since the upgrade of PF, I
believe the final dec
On 20 November 2012 12:47, Chuck Burns wrote:
> Nonsense. More options are always preferable to fewer options.
Even when those options must be maintained? Documented? Bug fixed?
--
Eitan Adler
___
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
http://list
On 11/20/2012 11:51 AM, Eitan Adler wrote:
On 20 November 2012 12:47, Chuck Burns wrote:
Nonsense. More options are always preferable to fewer options.
Even when those options must be maintained? Documented? Bug fixed?
The ones who want the old pf can maintain it.. those who want the new
o
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 12:22 PM, Chuck Burns wrote:
> The ones who want the old pf can maintain it.. those who want the new one,
> can maintain *it*.
This is beach front property on Fantasy Island. There isn't even enough
manpower to sufficiently support one currently.
--
Adam Vande More
__
Olivier,
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 01:24:49PM +0100, Olivier Smedts wrote:
O> > The other question that I haven't seen answered (or maybe even asked), but
O> > is relevant: what do we gain by going to a later version of pf? I.e. as an
O> > administrator, what benefit do I get by having to expend
Chuck,
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 10:33:11AM -0600, Chuck Burns wrote:
C> Why not release pf2 as a port? Then those who want the new pf can use
C> it, and those that want the old one can use it.
C>
C> Or, another option is a knob USE_NEWPF during buildworld will build the
C> new pf, otherwise i
24 matches
Mail list logo
