Hi, Some personal thoughts. I am happy when pf route-to gets simpler. Especially I have never understood what this address@interface syntax is used for.
I cannot estimate what configuration is used by our cutomers in many installations. Simple syntax change address@interface -> address of next hob should be no problem. Slight semantic changes have to be dealt with. Current packet flow is complicated and may be inspired by old NAT behavior. As long it becomes more sane and easier to understand, we should change it. But I don't like artificial restrictions. We don't know all use cases. reply-to and route-to could be used for both in and out rules. I have used them for strange divert-to on bridge setups. It should stay that way. It would be nice to keep state-less route-to. I have found a special case with that in the code of our product. But it looks like dead code, so I would not object to remove state-less route-to for now. bluhm
