Message from discussion PF inadequacy: queue download

Path: g2news2.google.com!news1.google.com!news4.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!nx02.iad01.newshosting.com!newshosting.com!129.250.175.17.MISMATCH!pln-w!spln!rex!newsgate.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!mdrn
From: kam...@geekoids.com (Sean Kamath)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.openbsd-pf
Subject: Re: PF inadequacy: queue download
Date: 1 May 2006 17:14:23 -0700
Organization: None
Lines: 23
Message-ID: <200605012124.k41LO3Yq004343@freezer.south.geekoids.com>
References: Your message of "01 May 2006 01:51:35 PDT."
             <1146473495.789338.13530@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: freezer.south.geekoids.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: 2 May 2006 00:14:24 GMT


[In a message on 01 May 2006 01:51:35 PDT,
  kestas....@gmail.com wrote:]
>This works adequetly (How could it be "better"? Sounds like zealot
>speak to me.) if the boxes only function is NAT, but if it also runs
>external services queueing inbound traffic on the internal interface
>doesn't work, because external services get priority.

Is it a firewall or a dessert topping?  Firewalls should firewall, not
serve services.  If you can't afford one box to firewall, and another
to provide services, well, you're in a fix.  I got a Sun IPX I'll give
you if you pay shipping (anything to end this topic) -- Hardly sucks
any juice, too.

I'm sure I'm part of a large majority of list members who would be
thrilled to see this topic end.  While there's no harm in asking for a
feature expansion, and a discussion about the technical feasibility of
it, when it devolves into accusations of "zealot speak", it's time to
move on.

Sean

PS You're all buying your CDs, right?  Once I'm employed again, I will be.