I agree that should be looking to upgrade to FBSD7 or maybe FBSD8 already?
What would be against it to plan the next (alpha/beta) versions with
I understood that especially the wireless part will benefit from that. (I
do not have any experience with FBSD8 yet.....)
A discussion about UPnP was held here b4 also, conclusion drawn back then,
that it would not be a welcome feature in M0n0, due to its security risks,
so why change now?
I can live without UPnP, basicly the only programs who I use who need it,
are PtoP programs, utorrent for instance works fine with a rule.
For professional implementations it is in my eyes totally not needed.
I'd vote also for load-balancing, OpenVPN would be nice also.
On Fri, 4 Dec 2009 09:48:51 -0500, "Robert" <valnar at yahoo dot com> wrote:
> Now that m0n0wall is at version 1.3, I looked back at what where it
> and when it came out. A lot has changed in six years. Embedded
> are more powerful now and 16Mb CF cards are practically non-existent.
> all throw away the 32Mb cards that come with our cameras. The original
> and net4801 boards are discontinued, the ALIX boards are now the
> choice, and earlier this year AMD announced that it stopped development
> the Geode processor.
> I think the original goals of m0n0wall were to make it as small as
> run from RAM and work on embedded platforms. But the definition of
> has changed. Upgrading the scope of m0n0wall to platforms with 128MB
> and 32MB Flash would be a better target. I still think it should focus
> firewall which can be run entirely from RAM, as to not cross paths with
> pfSense, Untangle or other firewalls which need more muscle and
> access to hard drives for caching, like squid. But that being said,
> are a couple features which could be added without breaking that rule.
> For an entirely selfish reason, I'd like to see UPnP supported added. I
> don't use m0n0wall today for this very reason. I'm forced to use
> with all its bugs and inability to upgrade easily over the network.
> UPnP as a feature would allow me to return. OpenVPN and load-balancing
> might also be possibilities.
> What other features would people like to see?