Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2020 10:35:01 -0700 (PDT) From: "Rodney W. Grimes" <freebsd-rwg@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> To: lev@freebsd.org Cc: "Andrey V. Elsukov" <bu7cher@yandex.ru>, Neel Chauhan <neel@neelc.org>, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Committing one ipfw(8) userland patch Message-ID: <202004071735.037HZ1mK093414@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> In-Reply-To: <ed3a9bec-e5ef-2f2b-ee90-5f68239a66dd@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> On 07.04.2020 11:28, Andrey V. Elsukov wrote: > > >> I have one patch for the ipfw userland tool: > >> https://reviews.freebsd.org/D24234 > >> > >> This patch adds the src-ip4/dst-ip4 and src-ipv4/dst-ipv4 aliases for > >> src-ip/dst-ip commands respectively in IPFW. > >> > >> Could someone please commit this patch? > > > > Can you describe what is the benefit to have all these aliases, when > > after adding the rule you will still see other name. I think this makes > > it more confusing. > I think, {src|dst}-ip without version should exist only for backward > compatibility and, maybe, produce warnings. But that is not what this review does. I would be in support of changing the "official" names to src-ip4/dst-ip4/src-ip6/dst-ip6 and making src-ip/dst-ip a backwards compatible alias. > > Why? symmetry & consistency. And equal length of fields in rules for > different versions, too :-) > > Also, there are confusion with me/me4/me6. When `src-ip` is really > `src-ip4`, what does `me` mean? `me4`? or `me4 OR me6`? The parts of the rule are not cross applied so this is a non-question, me4 with a src-ip6 matches 0 packets no mater what the values are. One could write syntax checkers to flag this NOP condition. > -- > // Lev Serebryakov -- Rod Grimes rgrimes@freebsd.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?202004071735.037HZ1mK093414>