--On June 26, 2005 12:40:14 AM +0100 Alex Zbyslaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Paul Schmehl wrote:
--On June 25, 2005 8:42:24 AM +0200 mess-mate <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I've a firewall/router/proxy with openbsd and think to replace it
with freebsd 5.4
Do you mean freebsd's PF don't suppor
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Khanh Cao
> Van
> Sent: Friday, June 24, 2005 9:33 AM
> To: freebsd-questions
> Subject: firewall on freebsd
>
>
> I'm going to learn about the freebsd firewall . In the handbook list
> some of them and I
On 2005-06-26 22:15, Alex Zbyslaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
> >On 2005-06-26 00:40, Alex Zbyslaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>>pf on freebsd does support the "quick" keyword. The "default"
> >>>firewall, ipfw, does not.
> >>>
> >>This makes no sense to me. The two fi
Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
On 2005-06-26 00:40, Alex Zbyslaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Paul Schmehl wrote:
pf on freebsd does support the "quick" keyword. The "default"
firewall, ipfw, does not.
This makes no sense to me. The two firewalls work very differently.
[...]
You d
* Paul Schmehl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-06-24 12:58:51 -0500]:
> I've been using pf for a few years now, and I've never had problems
> understanding the syntax or how it works (but I also never do NAT, so
> that might be the reason it seems easy to me.)
Yes, pf is great, but doing NAT with pf is
On 2005-06-26 00:40, Alex Zbyslaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Paul Schmehl wrote:
> >pf on freebsd does support the "quick" keyword. The "default"
> >firewall, ipfw, does not.
>
> This makes no sense to me. The two firewalls work very differently.
>
> In pf, each rule is always processed on ever
Paul Schmehl wrote:
--On June 25, 2005 8:42:24 AM +0200 mess-mate <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I've a firewall/router/proxy with openbsd and think to replace it
with freebsd 5.4
Do you mean freebsd's PF don't support the 'quick' keyword ??
Thought PF on freebsd and openbsd was identical, isn't
--On June 25, 2005 8:42:24 AM +0200 mess-mate <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I've a firewall/router/proxy with openbsd and think to replace it
with freebsd 5.4
Do you mean freebsd's PF don't support the 'quick' keyword ??
Thought PF on freebsd and openbsd was identical, isn't ?
pf on freebsd does s
On Saturday 25 June 2005 09:17 am, mess-mate wrote:
> Andrew L. Gould <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | On Saturday 25 June 2005 05:19 am, Erik Nørgaard wrote:
> | > mess-mate wrote:
> | > > I've a firewall/router/proxy with openbsd and think to replace
> | > > it with freebsd 5.4
> | > > Do you mean
Andrew L. Gould <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| On Saturday 25 June 2005 05:19 am, Erik Nørgaard wrote:
| > mess-mate wrote:
| > > I've a firewall/router/proxy with openbsd and think to replace it
| > > with freebsd 5.4
| > > Do you mean freebsd's PF don't support the 'quick' keyword ??
| > > Thought
On Saturday 25 June 2005 05:19 am, Erik Nørgaard wrote:
> mess-mate wrote:
> > I've a firewall/router/proxy with openbsd and think to replace it
> > with freebsd 5.4
> > Do you mean freebsd's PF don't support the 'quick' keyword ??
> > Thought PF on freebsd and openbsd was identical, isn't ?
>
> It
mess-mate wrote:
I've a firewall/router/proxy with openbsd and think to replace it
with freebsd 5.4
Do you mean freebsd's PF don't support the 'quick' keyword ??
Thought PF on freebsd and openbsd was identical, isn't ?
It's a port, pf on FBSD 5.4 is the same as pf on OBSD 3.6, AFAIK. So if
you
On Sat, Jun 25, 2005 at 08:42:24AM +0200, mess-mate wrote:
> I've a firewall/router/proxy with openbsd and think to replace it
> with freebsd 5.4
> Do you mean freebsd's PF don't support the 'quick' keyword ??
> Thought PF on freebsd and openbsd was identical, isn't ?
I don't know if they're iden
...snip...
|
| Personally, I like the "quick" keyword of the OpenBSD firewall, (but not
enough to bother
| installing it.)
|
| Paul Schmehl ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
I've a firewall/router/proxy with openbsd and think to replace it
with freebsd 5.4
Do you mean freebsd's PF don't support the 'quick'
--On June 24, 2005 5:31:13 PM +0100 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Friday 24 June 2005 15:31, fbsd_user wrote:
Which firewall you select to use should be based on your level of
understanding of how information is moved across the internet.
Ipfilter is best suited for people who are just learning a
On 2005-06-24 10:59, Ean Kingston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> For anyone who wants to start the in-kernel vs user-land NAT argument,
> I've already been through it and there are valid arguments for both
> sides. So, I won't get into it again.
Agreed. Most of the people who use FreeBSD in SOHO in
On 2005-06-24 10:31, fbsd_user <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Which firewall you select to use should be based on your level of
> understanding of how information is moved across the internet.
>
> Ipfilter is best suited for people who are just learning about
> firewalling. PF is a little more automa
I have been using ipfw for quite some time and I love it. The only
issues I have with it are on the NAT side. Without a tool to modify the
current nat rules, I can not change them dynamically without editing my
config file then doing something like...
killall -9 natd ; sleep 2 ; /sbin/natd -f /et
On Friday 24 June 2005 15:31, fbsd_user wrote:
> Which firewall you select to use should be based on your level of
> understanding of how information is moved across the internet.
> Ipfilter is best suited for people who are just learning about
> firewalling. PF is a little more automated and the r
On Friday 24 June 2005 10:59 am, Ean Kingston wrote:
> IPF was written for OpenBSD and later ported to FreeBSD. IPF came into
> existence because of disagreements between certain members of the OpenBSD
> team and the author of IPFilter. Filtering is done in the kernel and I
> believe NAT is also in
On June 24, 2005 09:33 am, Khanh Cao Van wrote:
> I'm going to learn about the freebsd firewall . In the handbook list
> some of them and I could not find out what is the best . So I decided
> to post here hoping to gain some of your opinion and experience .
> I would like to know what firewall was
Which firewall you select to use should be based on your level of
understanding of how information is moved across the internet.
Ipfilter is best suited for people who are just learning about
firewalling. PF is a little more automated and the rules are very
close to IPF's.
IPFW is for the advanced
22 matches
Mail list logo
