[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: pf and keep/modulate state on 6.2
- To: freebsd-questions_(_at_)_freebsd_(_dot_)_org
- Subject: Re: pf and keep/modulate state on 6.2
- From: RW <fbsd06_(_at_)_mlists_(_dot_)_homeunix_(_dot_)_com>
- Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 13:40:11 +0000
On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 05:59:58 -0600
"J.D. Bronson" <jbronson_(_at_)_wixb_(_dot_)_com> wrote:
> At 02:52 AM 02/26/2007, you wrote:
> >Wow, this fixed my FTP-over-DSL-to-6.2 problem too. With modulate
> >state, I was getting ~30K/sec. With just keep state, I'm now getting
> >more like what my connection is capable of. This is between two 6.2
> >hosts on opposite sides of the Atlantic.
> >Ted, I use pf because I like the format of the configuration file, I
> >like the logging and pftop, and like how it's harder to lock yourself
> >out of a remote machine by accident :)
> I use pf since its newer (I think?) and I came from openbsd..pf just
> works and the config file is nice and sweet.
> I had thought that modulate state would put a load on my proc, but
> sheesh, its a p4-3.06 - thats more than robust for a router.
> I wonder if we should file a bug on this?
> I am glad my post helped here. I still use modulate state for any
> INCOMING connections though (www/smtp/etc).
I wonder how much point there is in using "modulate" these days. The ISN
vulnerabilties it protects against were fixed a long time ago - we're
talking about unpatched Windows NT/9X machines and the like.
freebsd-questions_(_at_)_freebsd_(_dot_)_org mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscribe_(_at_)_freebsd_(_dot_)_org"