Re: ipfilter(4) needs maintainer

On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 07:55:21PM +0100, Joe Holden wrote:
> wishmaster wrote:
> 
> >  --- Original message ---
> > From: "Gary Palmer" <gpalmer_at_freebsd.org>
> > Date: 14 April 2013, 19:06:59
> > 
> >  
> >> On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 09:48:33AM -0600, Warren Block wrote:
> >>> Is it possible to move ipfilter into a port?
> >> That may work short term, but the ENOMAINTAINER problem will quickly creep
> >> up again as kernel APIs change.  If the author has lost interest in
> >> maintaining the FreeBSD port of ipfilter then unless someone steps forward
> >> to carry on the work, I don't see much of a future for ipfilter in
> >> FreeBSD
> >>
> >> Do we honestly need three packet filters?
> >   
> >     Yes! This is the most clever thought in this thread. Why we need
> >     3 firewalls? Two packet filters it's excess too.
> >      We have two packet filters: one with excellent syntax and
> >      functionality but with outdated bandwidth control mechanism
> >      (aka ALTQ); another - with nice traffic shaper/prioritization
> >      (dummynet)/classification (diffused) but with complicated
> >      implementation  in not trivial tasks.
> >     May be the next step will be discussion about one packet filter in the system?..
> > 
> > Cheers,
> For non-nat ipfw is still superior in every way, numbered rules (think: 
> scripts), dummynet, much faster than pf, syntax is a lot nicer and 
> predictable...
> 
> Does anyone even use ipf? it doesn't even work on Linux anymore, junk it 
> and keep pf+ipfw, job done.

m0n0wall uses ipfilter:

http://m0n0.ch/wall/facts.php