3 ms·

Why should I choose OpenBSD over FreeBSD or even Linux with nftables?

by bpye 6y ago

dijit 6y ago
If you’re really asking, and not making a point; PF is created and primarily maintained by OpenBSD OpenBSD’s base system (without extra packages) includes PF and has a focus on security. PF in freebsd is several major versions old. nftables (like iptables before it) is rule based and not bucket based. So high numbers of rules will not affect pf’s performance like it does with nftables. But, for home users, probably not noticeable. Though I prefer the syntax of PF personally.
- hyperpl 6y ago
  Wireguard has also been stable on OpenBSD which helped me with my throughput on my apu2d router hardware.
- fuzzy2 6y ago
  Could you expand on what you mean by "bucket based"? Maybe the so-called "tables"? They sound pretty identical to ipset on Linux.
  - dijit 6y ago
    Here's how a packet flows through netfilter[0], and here's how it flows through pf[1]. [0]: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/37/Netfilter-packet-flow.svg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/37/Netfilte... [1]: http://mailing.openbsd.misc.narkive.com/jtIB9W3w/pf-packet-flow-diagram:i.2.1.full http://mailing.openbsd.misc.narkive.com/jtIB9W3w/pf-packet-f...
- ta20210405 6y ago
  >nftables (like iptables before it) is rule based and not bucket based. What does this even mean? Do you have any documentation to explain? >So high numbers of rules will not affect pf’s performance like it does with nftables. This is wrong. From OpenBSD documentation: "More lines being evaluated for each packet will result in slower performance." [0]https://www.openbsd.org/faq/pf/perf.html https://www.openbsd.org/faq/pf/perf.html It's not 2001 any more. Nftables and Linux have left the BSDs in the dust.
  - dijit 6y ago
    The key is “for each packet”, because it’s bucket based it will entirely skip evaluation for packets that do not match. This is due to how the rule set is compiled, but I can see how it could be confusing if you’re used to iptables and only think in those terms. I posted the architectural diagrams of both in another comment on this thread yesterday, I think you missed that.
    - ta20210405 6y ago
      >The key is “for each packet”, because it’s bucket based it will entirely skip evaluation for packets that do not match. That is how it works in nftables. >but I can see how it could be confusing if you’re used to iptables and only think in those terms. Considering you're misunderstanding some basics about nftables and iptables here, I think you need to look in the mirror. >I posted the architectural diagrams of both in another comment on this thread yesterday, I think you missed that. I saw, and it only reenforced the fact that that's how nftables works. Hilariously enough, the OpenBSD webpage crashed and wouldn't load, giving various 500 and 42X errors.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - ta20210405 6y ago
        Here is an article that covers performance between Linux and FreeBSD, and it leaves BSD in the dust: https://matteocroce.medium.com/linux-and-freebsd-networking-cbadcdb15ddd https://matteocroce.medium.com/linux-and-freebsd-networking-... Also, it specifically outlined how more rules slow down of on FreeBSD, and how poor multicore support is on pf.

Why should I choose OpenBSD over FreeBSD or even Linux with nftables?

by bpye 6y ago

Why should I choose OpenBSD over FreeBSD or even Linux with nftables?

If you’re really asking, and not making a point; PF is created and primarily maintained by OpenBSD OpenBSD’s base system (without extra packages) includes PF and has a focus on security. PF in freebsd is several major versions old. nftables (like iptables before it) is rule based and not bucket based. So high numbers of rules will not affect pf’s performance like it does with nftables. But, for home users, probably not noticeable. Though I prefer the syntax of PF personally.

hyperpl 6y ago
Wireguard has also been stable on OpenBSD which helped me with my throughput on my apu2d router hardware.
fuzzy2 6y ago
Could you expand on what you mean by "bucket based"? Maybe the so-called "tables"? They sound pretty identical to ipset on Linux.
- dijit 6y ago
  Here's how a packet flows through netfilter[0], and here's how it flows through pf[1]. [0]: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/37/Netfilter-packet-flow.svg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/37/Netfilte... [1]: http://mailing.openbsd.misc.narkive.com/jtIB9W3w/pf-packet-flow-diagram:i.2.1.full http://mailing.openbsd.misc.narkive.com/jtIB9W3w/pf-packet-f...
ta20210405 6y ago
>nftables (like iptables before it) is rule based and not bucket based. What does this even mean? Do you have any documentation to explain? >So high numbers of rules will not affect pf’s performance like it does with nftables. This is wrong. From OpenBSD documentation: "More lines being evaluated for each packet will result in slower performance." [0]https://www.openbsd.org/faq/pf/perf.html https://www.openbsd.org/faq/pf/perf.html It's not 2001 any more. Nftables and Linux have left the BSDs in the dust.
- dijit 6y ago
  The key is “for each packet”, because it’s bucket based it will entirely skip evaluation for packets that do not match. This is due to how the rule set is compiled, but I can see how it could be confusing if you’re used to iptables and only think in those terms. I posted the architectural diagrams of both in another comment on this thread yesterday, I think you missed that.
  - ta20210405 6y ago
    >The key is “for each packet”, because it’s bucket based it will entirely skip evaluation for packets that do not match. That is how it works in nftables. >but I can see how it could be confusing if you’re used to iptables and only think in those terms. Considering you're misunderstanding some basics about nftables and iptables here, I think you need to look in the mirror. >I posted the architectural diagrams of both in another comment on this thread yesterday, I think you missed that. I saw, and it only reenforced the fact that that's how nftables works. Hilariously enough, the OpenBSD webpage crashed and wouldn't load, giving various 500 and 42X errors.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - ta20210405 6y ago
      Here is an article that covers performance between Linux and FreeBSD, and it leaves BSD in the dust: https://matteocroce.medium.com/linux-and-freebsd-networking-cbadcdb15ddd https://matteocroce.medium.com/linux-and-freebsd-networking-... Also, it specifically outlined how more rules slow down of on FreeBSD, and how poor multicore support is on pf.