From owner-freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Tue Jun 18 18:59:47 2019 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7510E15C58A0; Tue, 18 Jun 2019 18:59:47 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rfg@tristatelogic.com) Received: from outgoing.tristatelogic.com (segfault.tristatelogic.com [69.62.255.118]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8631489CD9; Tue, 18 Jun 2019 18:59:46 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rfg@tristatelogic.com) Received: by segfault.tristatelogic.com (Postfix, from userid 1237) id 1DE1B4E668; Tue, 18 Jun 2019 11:59:45 -0700 (PDT) From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Eliminating IPv6 (?) In-Reply-To: <23816.53518.998090.665606@jerusalem.litteratus.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <23510.1560884384.1@segfault.tristatelogic.com> Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2019 11:59:45 -0700 Message-ID: <23511.1560884385@segfault.tristatelogic.com> X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 8631489CD9 X-Spamd-Bar: ----- Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; spf=pass (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of rfg@tristatelogic.com designates 69.62.255.118 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=rfg@tristatelogic.com X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-5.90 / 15.00]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-1.00)[-1.000,0]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+mx]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_ALL(0.00)[]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; TO_DN_NONE(0.00)[]; DMARC_NA(0.00)[tristatelogic.com]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000,0]; IP_SCORE(-2.77)[ip: (-7.28), ipnet: 69.62.128.0/17(-3.64), asn: 14051(-2.87), country: US(-0.06)]; MX_GOOD(-0.01)[cached: mx1.tristatelogic.com]; RCPT_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-0.93)[-0.927,0]; RCVD_NO_TLS_LAST(0.10)[]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; R_DKIM_NA(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; ASN(0.00)[asn:14051, ipnet:69.62.128.0/17, country:US]; RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; SUBJECT_HAS_QUESTION(0.00)[] X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2019 18:59:47 -0000 In message <23816.53518.998090.665606@jerusalem.litteratus.org>, Robert Huff wrote: >> Actually, no, that's not how one is supposed to enable one's own set >> of ipfw ules. To do that, the Handbook (Sec. 30.4.1) says very clearly >> that one should do: >> >> firewall_enable="YES" >> firewall_type="path-to-my-rules-file" >> >> But I'm glad you brought it up. The funny thing is that even that >> doesn't work properly nowadays *or* like it used to in the past. > > If this is true - haven't checked personally - then it's a bug. >(And a non-trivial one, the fact you're the first to report it >notwithstanding.) > Can you please open a bug report? I aim to please. As requested: https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=238694 Regards, rfg