Le lun. 1 avr. 2019 à 14:32, Stephen Borrill <netbsd%precedence.co.uk@localhost> a écrit :
Your two statements are mutually inconsistent:
1) No-one is maintaining ipf or pf
and
2) If the effort had been on one firewall instead of three, the one chosen
would be more functional.
IMO it's consistent - if we had one, it would be clear to which one to
contribute, and clear if the feature is really missing and working.
i.e. nobody contributes anything because they don't know to which of
the firewalls to contribute.
In either case, let's return to a constructive discussion, and see
what needs to be done. NPF-only is the future, so let's get to that
future.
In the past discussion, I've only seen people mentioning only two
features missing in NPF and present in PF:
1. ftp-proxy support - Maxime volunteered to implement this in NPF,
I'm sure help there would be welcome
2. group support for config (mentioned by Manuel) - anyone feels like taking?
- ??it might be enough to have some kind of config preprocessor
initially if that's easier to do??
Is there anything else?