Everybody with IPv6 please take a look at the patches in the PR and report
back whether or not they fix things.
> http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=88664
--
/"\ Best regards, | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
\ / Max Laier | ICQ #67774661
X http://pf
On Saturday 13 May 2006 07:08, Vadim Goncharov wrote:
> >
> > would be cool however.
>
> May be, but I can't imagine a real situation where it can be useful,
> as tables already contain IP adresses. Can you give a real-life
> example where it helps ?
cool = good
may be = wonderful
can't imagine =
Synopsis: [patch] ipfw(8) sometimes treat ipv6 input as ipv4
Responsible-Changed-From-To: freebsd-ipfw->mlaier
Responsible-Changed-By: mlaier
Responsible-Changed-When: Sat May 13 15:50:52 UTC 2006
Responsible-Changed-Why:
I'll take care of this.
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=91245
_
Synopsis: [ipfw] ipfw stateful firewalling broken with IPv6
Responsible-Changed-From-To: freebsd-ipfw->mlaier
Responsible-Changed-By: mlaier
Responsible-Changed-When: Sat May 13 15:48:14 UTC 2006
Responsible-Changed-Why:
I'll look at this.
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=88664
___
On Sat, 13 May 2006 00:20:57 +0200
regisr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit:
> bin/91245 : [patch] ipfw(8) sometimes treat ipv6 input as ipv4
> With the fix in the PR the rules with IPv6 addresses are accepted.
The patch which is in the PR with new lines numbers ...
--- sbin/ipfw/ipfw2.c.orig Sa
Synopsis: [patch] [ipfw] ipfw does not correctly list dynamic IPv6 rules
Responsible-Changed-From-To: freebsd-bugs->freebsd-ipfw
Responsible-Changed-By: linimon
Responsible-Changed-When: Sat May 13 14:07:31 UTC 2006
Responsible-Changed-Why:
Over to maintainer(s).
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query
13.05.06 @ 16:38 Julian Elischer wrote:
A question about features: is it worth adding functionality of
matching
range of tags? For example:
ipfw add pass ip from any to any tagged 1-5,10,20
i think it is a useful feature, and if you reuse the existing code
for matching port ranges etc to i
Vadim Goncharov wrote:
12.05.06 22:56 Luigi Rizzo wrote:
A question about features: is it worth adding functionality of matching
range of tags? For example:
ipfw add pass ip from any to any tagged 1-5,10,20
i think it is a useful feature, and if you reuse the existing code
for matching por
12.05.06 22:56 Luigi Rizzo wrote:
A question about features: is it worth adding functionality of matching
range of tags? For example:
ipfw add pass ip from any to any tagged 1-5,10,20
i think it is a useful feature, and if you reuse the existing code
for matching port ranges etc to implement
