Comments on: Who’s for an OpenPF? https://www.dragonflydigest.com/2013/12/19/whos-for-an-openpf/ A running description of activity related to DragonFly BSD. Sat, 17 May 2014 13:03:58 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=7.0.1 By: In Other BSDs for 2014/05/17 – DragonFly BSD Digest https://www.dragonflydigest.com/2013/12/19/whos-for-an-openpf/comment-page-1/#comment-115139 Sat, 17 May 2014 13:03:58 +0000 http://www.shiningsilence.com/dbsdlog/?p=13008#comment-115139 […] LibreSSL will be portable.  I still want a portable pf. […]

]]> By: Lars Schotte https://www.dragonflydigest.com/2013/12/19/whos-for-an-openpf/comment-page-1/#comment-102307 Mon, 28 Apr 2014 17:27:57 +0000 http://www.shiningsilence.com/dbsdlog/?p=13008#comment-102307 The sad thing about this situation is that the only firewall that is working and is available to all BSDs is the old ipfilter. So that runs against the original intention to get rid of it and replace it with something better. pf was a try. I do not believe in it any more, even though it was a good one. npf is the next try. I hope this time it will finally work out for good.

]]> By: In Other BSDs for 2014/04/26 – DragonFly BSD Digest https://www.dragonflydigest.com/2013/12/19/whos-for-an-openpf/comment-page-1/#comment-101140 Sat, 26 Apr 2014 13:15:24 +0000 http://www.shiningsilence.com/dbsdlog/?p=13008#comment-101140 […] So I’ll bring up this point again: pf is fragmenting, and we should do something about it. […]

]]> By: Sukosevato https://www.dragonflydigest.com/2013/12/19/whos-for-an-openpf/comment-page-1/#comment-75407 Mon, 06 Jan 2014 21:49:02 +0000 http://www.shiningsilence.com/dbsdlog/?p=13008#comment-75407 I agree, I don’t think it is feasible to bring it back into one source tree, but ensuring the same syntax is used across all pf versions would be something that should be possible and would be very nice to have.

]]> By: BSDNow 18: Eclipsing Binaries – DragonFly BSD Digest https://www.dragonflydigest.com/2013/12/19/whos-for-an-openpf/comment-page-1/#comment-75002 Wed, 01 Jan 2014 19:10:24 +0000 http://www.shiningsilence.com/dbsdlog/?p=13008#comment-75002 […] 18, first of the new year, is up.  Among other things, it mentions my crazy ‘OpenPF’ idea, and there’s an interview with Baptiste Daroussin.  He’s one of the people working on […]

]]> By: Franco https://www.dragonflydigest.com/2013/12/19/whos-for-an-openpf/comment-page-1/#comment-74985 Wed, 01 Jan 2014 12:17:55 +0000 http://www.shiningsilence.com/dbsdlog/?p=13008#comment-74985 Oops, a little late to the discussion. The underlying issue really is SMP scaling… that’s what’s driving FreeBSD and NetBSD. That’s why there’s no motivation to stay in sync with OpenBSD. In DragonFly, we have exactly the same issue so sooner or later OpenBSD networking guys need to step up. Questions about this (and help offered) have been brought up in 2012 on the mailing lists (and probably before that as well). pf is great work and I’m not convinced npf will be of much relevance. Not sure if the FreeBSD 10 pf is going to cut it as well being based on an outdated version. OpenBSD really holds all the power to change that (for now).

FWIW, I can take a shot at updating pf after netmap has settled in.

>>> https://twitter.com/HenningBrauer/status/418348714294779904

]]> By: Eclipsing Binaries | BSD Now 18 | Jupiter Broadcasting https://www.dragonflydigest.com/2013/12/19/whos-for-an-openpf/comment-page-1/#comment-74948 Wed, 01 Jan 2014 05:37:14 +0000 http://www.shiningsilence.com/dbsdlog/?p=13008#comment-74948 […] OpenPF? […]

]]> By: www https://www.dragonflydigest.com/2013/12/19/whos-for-an-openpf/comment-page-1/#comment-74498 Sat, 28 Dec 2013 11:37:33 +0000 http://www.shiningsilence.com/dbsdlog/?p=13008#comment-74498 FYI, NetBSD’s npf has nothing in common with OpeBSD’s pf:
http://mail-index.netbsd.org/netbsd-announce/2010/09/13/msg000110.html
http://www.netbsd.org/~rmind/npf/

]]> By: Eric Radman https://www.dragonflydigest.com/2013/12/19/whos-for-an-openpf/comment-page-1/#comment-73820 Sat, 21 Dec 2013 16:40:52 +0000 http://www.shiningsilence.com/dbsdlog/?p=13008#comment-73820 Likewise FreeBSD is not interested in staying current with PF; they’re interested in SMP:

“The pf firewall, originally from OpenBSD, got upgraded to support fine-grain locking and better utilization on multi-cpu machines” [https://wiki.freebsd.org/WhatsNew/FreeBSD10]

]]> By: Corey https://www.dragonflydigest.com/2013/12/19/whos-for-an-openpf/comment-page-1/#comment-73691 Fri, 20 Dec 2013 04:43:39 +0000 http://www.shiningsilence.com/dbsdlog/?p=13008#comment-73691 That would be cool, but I think the porting effort for pf is probably higher than that for something like OpenSSH due to its deeper hooks into the kernel and network stack. NetBSD even has some different goals in mind I think with npf (multicore filtering), so they may no longer want a port in the strict sense. But an agreement on a base level of functionality and configuration file syntax would be nice.

]]>