Re: hmmmm what is the future of ipf ??

[Greg Thomas <ethant_(_at_)_pacificnet_(_dot_)_net>]

On Wed, 30 May 2001, Generic Player wrote:

> Sorry, I should have been more clear, that was a shot at IPF, 
> since its NAT engine is broken, its really not that useful.
> I know it exists.

Depends on what you're using it for.  It works great for my implementation
so I'd say it's very useful.

Greg

> On Wed, May 30, 2001 at 12:47:46PM -0400, Jim Zajkowski wrote:
> > At the moment you can use ipf's ipnat to do NAT under OpenBSD.
> > 
> > man ipnat
> > 
> > --Jim
> > 
> > On Wed, May 30, 2001 at 12:20:56PM -0500, Generic Player wrote:
> > > Awesome!  I realize its not a trivial change, but is this 
> > > something that we will be able to test out in the near future, 
> > > or is it likely a few months off?  I'd love to be able to use
> > > OpenBSD for a NAT machine.
> > > 
> > > Adam
> > > 
> > > On Tue, May 29, 2001 at 07:20:15PM -0600, Todd C. Miller wrote:
> > > > In message <20010529210820_(_dot_)_A21618_(_at_)_home_(_dot_)_com>
> > > > 	so spake Generic Player (genericplayer2):
> > > > 
> > > > > Am I missing something here?  Why do so many people 
> > > > > say FreeBSD uses IPF?  Last I looked FreeBSD used 
> > > > > ipfw, why not use it?  I have never seen any problems
> > > > > with ipfw, where as IPF still doesn't work right.
> > > > 
> > > > FreeBSD ships with both ipfw and ipf.  The current plan is for
> > > > OpenBSD to transition to ipfw...
> > > > 
> > > >  - todd
> > > 
> > 
> > -- 
> > Jim Zajkowski
> > System Administrator
> > ITCS Contract Services