A pfSense roadmap
-
You've clearly put a great deal of thought into the roadmap, and I'm impressed.The recently announced Intel Xeon SOC will be very interesting with v3.
One thought/suggestion regarding packages- have you thought about enforcing a rule that requires all third party packages to have a separate jail? Freenas does this now, and it improves the security and stability of the platform. It will make creating packages a bit more work, but with COW ZFS you won't waste disk.
(You are migrating to root on ZFS I hope).
Yes, we knew about Broadwell-DE (the codename for Xeon D), and kept it in-mind while evaluating our options. We have a future product based on BDE in development.
root on ZFS: perhaps even for embedded. The issue here is that ZFS eats ram for breakfast, and lower-end systems don't necessarily have same to spare.
We're quite aware of what the guys at iXsystems are doing with FreeNAS and PC-BSD. First step here is to get to 'pkg(ng)' on pfSense.
-
@gonzopancho:
Yes, we knew about Broadwell-DE (the codename for Xeon D), and kept it in-mind while evaluating our options. We have a future product based on BDE in development.
root on ZFS: perhaps even for embedded. The issue here is that ZFS eats ram for breakfast, and lower-end systems don't necessarily have same to spare.
We're quite aware of what the guys at iXsystems are doing with FreeNAS and PC-BSD. First step here is to get to 'pkg(ng)' on pfSense.
ZFS only really eats RAM when deduplication is used. The COW capability of ZFS combined with Jails is light years ahead of Docker et. al.
I agree that getting pkg working is the first step, and I love that you're getting rid of PHP!
-
I am against the idea of dropping PPTP.
While I agree deprecating it and not supporting it (hell, hide it if necessary), there are a lot of industrial machines that only support PPTP. For example, PLCs come to mind.
I understand the reason and I agree that noone should use PPTP but thats not a reason to remove it. With it disabled and/or not recommended, it does not hurt pfSense. Whoever chooses to enable it, is under his/her own consequences.
-
With it disabled and/or not recommended, it does not hurt pfSense.
I guess you figure the code is self-maintaining. And also will rewrite itself to Python by some magic.
-
"While I agree deprecating it and not supporting it (hell, hide it if necessary), there are a lot of industrial machines that only support PPTP. For example, PLCs come to mind."
I assume these PLCs are sitting behind a router? Why not let pfsense tunnel all the stuff you used to use PPTP for over a different type of vpn?
I can't imagine a situation (other than being unable to purchase or build a pfsense) where you can't replace PPTP.
-
With it disabled and/or not recommended, it does not hurt pfSense.
I guess you figure the code is self-maintaining. And also will rewrite itself to Python by some magic.
Rewrite the code once to Python and thats it. End of support.
On top of that, don't write whatever the fuck you want; 2.3 is set to drop PPTP. 3.0 is far away from us. The rewrite isnt even taking in though PPTP.
2.3 should be released with PPTP "as-is" and disabling/hiding it unless the user himself decides to enable it. If it drops in 3.0 (whenever that is in the far future), so be it (depending on what timeframe, I would probably be for dropping it).
-
I assume these PLCs are sitting behind a router? Why not let pfsense tunnel all the stuff you used to use PPTP for over a different type of vpn?
Because old stuff is usually only compatible with PPTP.
I just gave my point of view; I understand that security wise (and technology wise) the choice to drop PPTP, I just dont agree removing it; I think it should be unsupported.
-
With it disabled and/or not recommended, it does not hurt pfSense.
I guess you figure the code is self-maintaining. And also will rewrite itself to Python by some magic.
Rewrite the code once to Python and thats it. End of support.
I assume you volunteer to do the job… ::)
-
With it disabled and/or not recommended, it does not hurt pfSense.
I guess you figure the code is self-maintaining. And also will rewrite itself to Python by some magic.
Rewrite the code once to Python and thats it. End of support.
I assume you volunteer to do the job… ::)
You are avoiding the subject.
2.3 is to released soon.
3.0 is to be released in a distant future.Leave it as-is right now unsupported in 2.3 (PHP), 2.3.1 (PHP), 2.3.2 (PHP), 2.4 (PHP), etc.
THEN when the rewrite in Python comes (3.0) if noone wants to rewrite it in Phyton, then don't. Release the 3.0 release without PPTP.
Do I need to spoonfeed you any further?
-
Also, from what I understood, the team wants to move away from having a pfSense distribution to being a package called pfSense that runs on FreeBSD.
If this is so, technically you would install FreeBSD then install a package called "pfSense" and if you still want to, you can install a package that acts like a PPTP server on FreeBSD. Thats what I understood from the blog post although I might be mistaken.
I think that would be great personally :)
-
Do I need to spoonfeed you any further?
No, thanks. Enough time wasted debating obvious junk that should already have been removed, since it's been utterly broken for years.
-
Do I need to spoonfeed you any further?
No, thanks. Enough time wasted debating obvious junk that should already have been removed, since it's been utterly broken for years.
I just want to go on record saying I personally use SSTP and/or OpenVPN. I do understand certain scenarios (like I listed) where PPTP might come in handy (even as a quick test).
-
Also, from what I understood, the team wants to move away from having a pfSense distribution to being a package called pfSense that runs on FreeBSD.
If this is so, technically you would install FreeBSD then install a package called "pfSense" and if you still want to, you can install a package that acts like a PPTP server on FreeBSD. Thats what I understood from the blog post although I might be mistaken.
I think that would be great personally :)
both will exist, but having pfSense as a package (including 'base') will allow us to update individual components. I suppose if someone wanted to create a "PPTP package" and add it in, that would still work.
-
Are there some public discussions about which web framework to use for pFsense 3, how the api would look like etc… or did nothing happen in that regard yet. Also is there a way to sign up somewhere if one would be interested in helping out on the effort?
-
Are there some public discussions about which web framework to use for pFsense 3, how the api would look like etc… or did nothing happen in that regard yet. Also is there a way to sign up somewhere if one would be interested in helping out on the effort?
Not yet, right now from a web perspective we're still focused on the Bootstrap work for 2.3. We'll start a thread on the development board here when all that gets underway, as well as the dev mailing list. Definitely would appreciate help on that effort when we get to that point!
In the mean time, we welcome contributions to the bootstrap effort.
-
Any ~ ETA on 2.4 as Im pretty keen to get a non corrupting Filesystem
-
Any ~ ETA on 2.4 as Im pretty keen to get a non corrupting Filesystem
It'll be beta quite soon. Not too much longer now. It's shaping up fast.
-
Any ~ ETA on 2.4 as Im pretty keen to get a non corrupting Filesystem
It'll be beta quite soon. Not too much longer now. It's shaping up fast.
Currently the description of the 2.4 development snapshot says:
HIGHLY-EXPERIMENTAL pfSense 2.4.0 ALPHA developers tree
Are you implying that at some point in the (near?) future the description will say BETA instead of ALPHA? If so, what are the criteria for ALPHA vs. BETA? I'm looking forward to 2.4 being released so I can move away from a tunnel to native ipv6.
-
Yes, beta soon and that page will be updated.
-
No doubt the developers are all busy getting 2.4 ready for release, but the original post of this thread is coming up on 3 years old. It would be nice if there was an update to the roadmap.
