Re: 2 questions regarding PF

[Przemysław Pawełczyk <pp_o2@xxxxx>]

On Wed, 3 Nov 2010 15:29:34 +0200
Stathis Kamperis <ekamperi@gmail.com> wrote:

(...)
> > "Besides, just think of it." As the OpenBSD team ***did*** the work
> > (for others, DF including) why not to jump to the latest version? Is
> > not justified such thinking?
> 
> 1. They did not do the work for DF nor anyone else.
> http://www.openbsd.org/papers/asiabsdcon2010_pf/mgp00012.html
> As the slide says, PF is getting harder and harder to port with
> increasing version numbers. Probably, due to its tighter integration
> with the rest of the OS. But also because it contains unreadable code,
> e.g. http://www.netbsd.org/~rmind/pf.txt . On top of these, we have
> dfly-specific features, that need to be preserved. So huge-diffs don't
> quite work.
> 
> 2. If you go for the latest/greatest and fail, you end up with your
> ancient PF version. But if you do incremental updates, you mitigate
> the impact of a potentially unsuccessful port. Also, if you are
> tired/bored at some point, others have a stepping-stone to continue
> the effort.

Gentlemen,
(Messrs. Paul Onyschuk, Stathis Kamperis, Jan Lentfer, et al)

I thank you very much for your grass-root insight into PF issue which
has a lot of hype attached to it.

1. I understand that someone will put PF 4.2 guide on DF WWW.

2. I understand that PF development will go its old way - better
performance AND hectic times for those who dares to integrate
latest PF version (from OpenBSD) into other op systems AND the same
problem with MP implementation (or lack of).

3. I understand that PF 4.8 is the best from all of its versions -
simplified, improved, and optimized.

4. I do know nothing about "packet filters" future implementations in
DF:

a) was the PF 4.2 implemented verbatim or was it tighter integrated with
DF MP kernel and as such it constitutes new - DF - flavor of PFs?

b) will PF presence in DF be continued in the future or will it be
supplanted with NPF or other "MP aware packet filters"?


> >> I also grab the chance to thank Jan Lentfer in public, for his
> >> dedication and hard efforts that yielded excellent results.
> >
> > My God, I only asked why... You are the second person paying
> > tribute to Mr Jan Lentfer publicly for His works taking advantage
> > of my e-mail. Did I say anything belittling His efforts and the
> > results?
> >
> > I thought it was understandable to all that His works are highly
> > appreciated.
> 
> You are being touchy and sarcastic, but there's no need for either.

I'm sorry, I'll try to keep my rein on my pen (keyboard) more.


> > P.S. Why everybody answers to my account and to the mailing list? I
> > subscribed to the mailing list with provision not to be clobbered
> > with double e-mails.
> 
> You could have said it at your first email and we wouldn't.
> Usually, people that subscribe to a mailing list, choose to receive
> messages in a daily digest or so. In such cases, it's reasonable to
> CC' them when we reply to their messages.

Thanks.

Regards

-- 
Przemysław Pawełczyk (P2O2) [pron. Pshemislav Paveltchick]
http://pp.blast.pl, pp_o2@o2.pl

Attachment: pgp00005.pgp
Description: PGP signature