DaemonForums  

Go Back   DaemonForums > Miscellaneous > Off-Topic

Off-Topic Everything else.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   (View Single Post)  
Old 21st January 2011
qmemo's Avatar
qmemo qmemo is offline
Shell Scout
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Egypt
Posts: 133
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Question IPF & PF

Hello, I tried to look up IPF vs PF which led me to this discussion

I stopped reading it cause I felt lost, the reason I am asking is this, if PF was so cool why it has not been adopted by Solaris or Linux tell now like what happened with ZFS *every one is trying to port it right?*

I am not bashing PF, I am just asking out of curiosity


Thanks in advance
Reply With Quote
  #2   (View Single Post)  
Old 21st January 2011
jggimi's Avatar
jggimi jggimi is offline
More noise than signal
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 3,608
Thanked 214 Times in 189 Posts
Default

You are asking to revive a ten year old discussion?

PF has been ported. The FreeBSD project did so years ago.

As to why other router OS teams have not, your best bet would be to ask those developers. This forum is for BSD users primarily, and few developers from any OS post here.

I could guess, if you like. But all it would be is merely conjecture. I'd mention the non-advocacy culture of the OBSD project, the alternatives like IPF already being available, the lack of either awareness or interest on the part of other OS teams..... But like most OBSD users, I don't care very much. If I need a router or a bridge, I choose OpenBSD.

If I need a large Oracle engine, I choose Solaris or AIX. If I need a smartphone I choose Linux.
Reply With Quote
  #3   (View Single Post)  
Old 21st January 2011
qmemo's Avatar
qmemo qmemo is offline
Shell Scout
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Egypt
Posts: 133
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

nope, I am not trying to revive a ten year old discussion.

what I am trying to say is this, I know that PF has been ported to Free/Net

why a big company like SUN have not ported it to Solaris? and instead they are still using IPF!

I am just asking for answer if it's known, if it's not then they just do there thing and the BSD guys do there's.

That's all
Reply With Quote
  #4   (View Single Post)  
Old 21st January 2011
ocicat ocicat is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 2,873
Thanked 190 Times in 160 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by qmemo View Post
why a big company like SUN have not ported it to Solaris?
All anyone here can do is guess.

But if reality is any indication, look at the lag in PF versions found in both FreeBSD & NetBSD. Even though the network stacks are similar, porting PF is not a trivial matter, & I suspect that this is the general answer to your question -- very few engineers exist who have the knowledge, time, & desire to port it.

Secondly, it is important to focus on the tight binding between PF & the network stack. FreeBSD & NetBSD are at least close in fundamental structure in network stacks to OpenBSD. Solaris has long diverged from its FreeBSD roots. I suspect (but this is conjecture as well...) that it would be very difficult to shoehorn PF onto Solaris' network stack. Again, someone would have to possess the knowledge, time, & desire to port PF.

The other side of tight binding is that PF & OpenBSD's network stack are evolving/melding together more & more. Who is the say that PF's structure would be efficient on another network stack? I suspect (& this is conjecture too...) that the optimum packet filtering functionality for a network stack is specific to that stack. Yes, code can be written to be generic, but performance will likely degrade as a result.

Lastly, Sun is no longer. Oracle is calling the shots, & I suspect there is still upheaval going on following the merger. What is the value of having PF on Solaris? If porting is not likely to generate measurable sales, I suspect (again, conjecture...) there is little desire to port PF.

Last edited by ocicat; 21st January 2011 at 04:15 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #5   (View Single Post)  
Old 21st January 2011
BSDfan666 BSDfan666 is offline
Real Name: N/A, this is the interweb.
Helpful companion
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 2,223
Thanked 193 Times in 184 Posts
Default

PF relies heavily on BSD kernel internals, (..mbufs for example, the BSD representation of network packets/buffers).

It's not an easy task to port something that's intimately part of the kernel, it's far reaching, even the FreeBSD/NetBSD ports of PF are based on an earlier version.

A lot of projects have their own packet filters, adapting another would probably be counterproductive.. and in some cases, it would be a full rewrite.
Reply With Quote
  #6   (View Single Post)  
Old 21st January 2011
qmemo's Avatar
qmemo qmemo is offline
Shell Scout
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Egypt
Posts: 133
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ocicat View Post
Sun is no longer. Oracle is calling the shots, & I suspect there is still upheaval going on following the merger. What is the value of having PF on Solaris? If porting is not likely to generate measurable sales, I suspect (again, conjecture...) there is little desire to port PF.
I was suspecting an answer like this, so in software business it's not about how cool an app is, it's about the demand for it; and since SUN|Oracle is dominant now *as is* I do not anticipate *soon* that a developer some where will pop on the grid of software development map and say hey, let's add this cool feature to our system cause for them if it do not mean more money or a better place then to hell with it!.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BSDfan666 View Post
PF relies heavily on BSD kernel internals, (..mbufs for example, the BSD representation of network packets/buffers).

It's not an easy task to port something that's intimately part of the kernel, it's far reaching, even the FreeBSD/NetBSD ports of PF are based on an earlier version.

A lot of projects have their own packet filters, adapting another would probably be counter productive.. and in some cases, it would be a full rewrite.
they can do it if they want to, but they won't

any way thanks guys for the answer
Reply With Quote
  #7   (View Single Post)  
Old 21st January 2011
jggimi's Avatar
jggimi jggimi is offline
More noise than signal
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 3,608
Thanked 214 Times in 189 Posts
Default

These were not answers. They were conjecture.
Quote:
con·jec·ture

 /kənˈdʒɛktʃər/ Show Spelled [kuhn-jek-cher] Show IPA noun, verb, -tured, -tur·ing.
–noun

1. the formation or expression of an opinion or theory without sufficient evidence for proof.

2. an opinion or theory so formed or expressed; guess; speculation.

3. Obsolete . the interpretation of signs or omens.


–verb (used with object)

4. to conclude or suppose from grounds or evidence insufficient to ensure reliability.


–verb (used without object)

5. to form conjectures.
If you want answers, you'll have to speak to Solaris kernel development managers at Oracle. Jump on a Linux kernel developer's mailing list and ask them why they haven't bothered.

I don't believe OpenSolaris has an open kernel. If I'm right, there's no need to ask that project about it.
Reply With Quote
  #8   (View Single Post)  
Old 21st January 2011
qmemo's Avatar
qmemo qmemo is offline
Shell Scout
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Egypt
Posts: 133
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

@jggimi

it's still an answer despite the fact it's not a *fact*

and for the mailing list idea, hey it's a cool idea!

Thanks mate
Reply With Quote
  #9   (View Single Post)  
Old 21st January 2011
jggimi's Avatar
jggimi jggimi is offline
More noise than signal
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 3,608
Thanked 214 Times in 189 Posts
Default

Good luck with the Linux crowd.

(I like definition #3 the best. )
Reply With Quote
Old 21st January 2011
qmemo's Avatar
qmemo qmemo is offline
Shell Scout
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Egypt
Posts: 133
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

heh, I was told it's almost impossible with out a rewrite and was told also to stop bitching.

what a nice guys
Reply With Quote
Old 21st January 2011
IdOp's Avatar
IdOp IdOp is offline
Too dumb for a smartphone
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: twisting on the daemon's fork(2)
Posts: 552
Thanked 14 Times in 13 Posts
Default

Because of the tight binding of pf with the OS network stack mentioned by ocicat and BSDfan666, my conjecture is that "porting pf to Linux" (for example) might end up being more like porting Linux to pf. I kinda don't see that happening.
Reply With Quote
Old 25th January 2011
phoenix's Avatar
phoenix phoenix is offline
Risen from the ashes
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 699
Thanked 90 Times in 81 Posts
Default

IPFW was ported to Linux, along with DummyNet. So it wouldn't be impossible to port PF.

Considering how often they change the packet filter in Linux, I wouldn't discount it from happening. Of course, Linux devs have THE worst case of NIH syndrome that I highly doubt they would even consider it. (FreeBSD devs ported IPFW, for example.)
__________________
Freddie

Help for FreeBSD: Handbook, FAQ, man pages, mailing lists.
Reply With Quote
Old 26th January 2011
qmemo's Avatar
qmemo qmemo is offline
Shell Scout
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Egypt
Posts: 133
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

@phoenix

awesome, most cheerful answer *conjecture* tell now.

the differences between OS's are narrowing down, may be soon will see WWOS; who knows
Reply With Quote
Old 31st January 2011
lumiwa lumiwa is offline
Package Pilot
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 145
Thanked 4 Times in 3 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by qmemo View Post
Hello, I tried to look up IPF vs PF which led me to this discussion

I stopped reading it cause I felt lost, the reason I am asking is this, if PF was so cool why it has not been adopted by Solaris or Linux tell now like what happened with ZFS *every one is trying to port it right?*

I am not bashing PF, I am just asking out of curiosity


Thanks in advance
I am not developer, not programmer and my education has nothing with computers. On the market are three major OS:
Windows
Mac OS
Linux

The BSDs are not important for the market. And it is a true. Just look what happened with Xfce, KDE 4.6 and who know wha GNOME 3 will bring.
Where are drivers for BSD? Flash for BSD?
FreeBSD has a Linux layer because users want a flash which is not native for BSD, many games..., web cameras...

And if you are looking "wars" between Linux and BSD users, plus Theo Radt talkings about Linux...what do you expect? Do you expect that Linux developers port PF? I don't.
Reply With Quote
Old 2nd February 2011
qmemo's Avatar
qmemo qmemo is offline
Shell Scout
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Egypt
Posts: 133
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

@lumiwa

Good point!
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:10 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content copyright © 2007-2010, the authors
Daemon image copyright ©1988, Marshall Kirk McKusick