Use OpenBSD.
For firewalling I have an IP-Less bridge running OBSD3.0 and a Firewall behind that running OBSD3.1 Funny both boxes are old HP Vectra VL's with 90mhz pentium processors a whopping 16 megs of ram and 500 meg HDD's. I don't believe I've ever dropped a packet. And running a top on my systems show a couple of computers 100 idle all the time. Interesting.
For firewalling OpenBSD is the ONLY way to fly!
Finally, Linux is a better OS than FreeBSD.
At least us Debian folks can still do firewalling and NAT.
Actually as my post pointed out above I do firewalling quite nicely with OBSD. Depending on what firewalling package you use with FBSD 4.6 you can do firewalling fairly easily as well. IPFW is pretty much hosed in 4.6, although I believe there are some patches out now, IPF however, works flawlessly, it's also been a stateful packet filter much longer than your precious debian. I will concede that firewalling in linux in general has come a very very long way in the past several months, it certainly IS INDEED giving the BSD's a run for their money. My humble opinion.
bygones....
welcome back elmore ;D
It's a little disappointing that the FreeBSD boyz would screw up IPFW and not even mention that in their errata. Almost feels like Microsoft all over again... :-X Come to think of it, I don't think big, bad MS was quite that careless!!! >
[quote author=elmore link=board=10;threadid=4001;start=0#44678 date=1028611015]
Actually as my post pointed out above I do firewalling quite nicely with OBSD. Depending on what firewalling package you use with FBSD 4.6 you can do firewalling fairly easily as well. IPFW is pretty much hosed in 4.6, although I believe there are some patches out now, IPF however, works flawlessly, it's also been a stateful packet filter much longer than your precious debian. I will concede that firewalling in linux in general has come a very very long way in the past several months, it certainly IS INDEED giving the BSD's a run for their money. My humble opinion.
bygones....
[/quote]
Not that I would ever use IPFW, but the specific problems I have seen in 4.6 are performance related. Specifically with NAT. Now there are work arounds, and I believe that IPFW will most likely go the way of the "dodo" by the time 5.0 gets released. IPF is a much better filter. All of this is my speculative opinion of course.
As for the Micro$oft comment. Man that's really low. There are roughly four releases of FreeBSD a year, all done in people's spare time for free. If something doesn't work perhaps you could spare some time and fix it. I'm sure the FreeBSD core group would be appreciative.
Yah, you're right, my comments were a bit over the top...blame it on too many beers last night. If I was that talented, I'd try to fix it. Having said that, one of FreeBSD's claims to fame (vs. Linux, for example), is its quality control. This bug is more than just some little obscure thing that you could dismiss as being trivial. That's what disappoints me.
[quote author=elmore link=board=10;threadid=4001;start=0#44808 date=1028693332]
Not that I would ever use IPFW, but the specific problems I have seen in 4.6 are performance related. Specifically with NAT. Now there are work arounds, and I believe that IPFW will most likely go the way of the "dodo" by the time 5.0 gets released. IPF is a much better filter. All of this is my speculative opinion of course.
As for the Micro$oft comment. Man that's really low. There are roughly four releases of FreeBSD a year, all done in people's spare time for free. If something doesn't work perhaps you could spare some time and fix it. I'm sure the FreeBSD core group would be appreciative.
[/quote]
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks