Comments on: ipfw-classifyd http://roadtoqos.wordpress.com/2008/11/13/ipfw-classifyd/ Another way to look at QoS in IP Networks Sun, 17 May 2009 16:14:34 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: Helder Pereira http://roadtoqos.wordpress.com/2008/11/13/ipfw-classifyd/#comment-4 Helder Pereira Fri, 28 Nov 2008 09:25:52 +0000 http://roadtoqos.wordpress.com/?p=10#comment-4 We actually use pf! The name ipfw-classifyd comes from the time when ipfw-classifyd only worked with ipfw. Ermal Luçi did the necessary changes not only to ipfw-classifyd but also to pf to integrate them. The new pf already as divert capabilities wich allows us to use ipfw-classifyd with it. So the simple answer is, we use pf, not ipfw. We actually use pf! The name ipfw-classifyd comes from the time when ipfw-classifyd only worked with ipfw. Ermal Luçi did the necessary changes not only to ipfw-classifyd but also to pf to integrate them. The new pf already as divert capabilities wich allows us to use ipfw-classifyd with it. So the simple answer is, we use pf, not ipfw.

]]> By: 鳥毅 http://roadtoqos.wordpress.com/2008/11/13/ipfw-classifyd/#comment-2 鳥毅 Fri, 28 Nov 2008 06:07:43 +0000 http://roadtoqos.wordpress.com/?p=10#comment-2 Why you do not use pf? IMHO, pf is better than ipfw. Maybe you need to keep backward compatibility. Thank you very much for your efforts. Why you do not use pf? IMHO, pf is better than ipfw.
Maybe you need to keep backward compatibility.

Thank you very much for your efforts.

]]>