On Sun, 24 Nov 2013 23:56:14 +0400, Alexander V. Chernikov wrote: > On 24.11.2013 19:43, Özkan KIRIK wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I tested patch. This patch solves, ipfw table 1 add 4899 > Ok. So I'll commit this fix soon. > > > > But, ipfw table 1 add 10.2.3.01 works incorrectly. > > output is below. > > # ./ipfw table 1 flush > > # ./ipfw table 1 add 10.2.3.01 > inet_pton() does not recognize this as valid IPv4 address, so it is > treated as usigned unteger key. It looks like this behavior is mentioned > in STANDARDS section. > > # ./ipfw table 1 list > > 0.0.0.10/32 0
I'm wondering if "so don't do that" is really sufficient to deal with this? If it's not recognised as a valid address, shouldn't it fail to add anything, with a complaint? I don't see how a string containing dots can be seen as a valid unsigned integer? cheers, Ian _______________________________________________ freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ipfw To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ipfw-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
