3 ms·
Even were it adequately explained, it would still be underused, being a pretty crappy interface. I find it virtually the antithesis of iptables, whose syntax an
by nknight 14y ago
Even were it adequately explained, it would still be underused, being a pretty crappy interface. I find it virtually the antithesis of iptables, whose syntax and meaning is fairly intuitive and easy both to remember, and derive from a few example rules.
- JoachimSchipper 14y agoI agree that tc is not a very good user interface, but I'm not sure I agree with you that IPTables is. Consider http://www.openbsd.org/faq/pf/example1.html#allrules http://www.openbsd.org/faq/pf/example1.html#allrules - a nice configuration language does look better than a shell script.
- zobzu 14y agoWell I happen to disagree with that. So yeah, the script is very small. But why is it? Because aliases are used everywhere. Over simplifying things. When you read it, you don't know what it does. When you read the 3 pages of explanations, you get the idea, but you still don't know exactly what it does. At least with iptables you do. And you can match virtually anything (like a bit in a packet if you like) The real interface issue is TC.
- nknight 14y agoUh, yeah, no, that's not my idea of a good user interface. If anything, you've just convinced me never to touch pf.
- patrickgzill 14y agoGo ahead and touch it anyways. I can't imagine firewalling without it.