From owner-freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Tue Jun 18 21:27:53 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 7575815C908F; Tue, 18 Jun 2019 21:27:53 +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 933638E9D3; Tue, 18 Jun 2019 21:27:52 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rfg@tristatelogic.com) Received: by segfault.tristatelogic.com (Postfix, from userid 1237) id 89C064E668; Tue, 18 Jun 2019 14:27:51 -0700 (PDT) From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" cc: FreeBSD Net , Mailinglists FreeBSD Subject: Re: Eliminating IPv6 (?) In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <24392.1560893271.1@segfault.tristatelogic.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2019 14:27:51 -0700 Message-ID: <24393.1560893271@segfault.tristatelogic.com> X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 933638E9D3 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 [-3.86 / 15.00]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-0.99)[-0.993,0]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+mx]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_ALL(0.00)[]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; DMARC_NA(0.00)[tristatelogic.com]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-0.999,0]; IP_SCORE(-2.75)[ip: (-7.23), ipnet: 69.62.128.0/17(-3.62), asn: 14051(-2.86), country: US(-0.06)]; TO_DN_ALL(0.00)[]; MX_GOOD(-0.01)[cached: mx1.tristatelogic.com]; RCPT_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; MISSING_TO(2.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-0.91)[-0.909,0]; 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 21:27:53 -0000 In message Andreas Nilsson wrote: >But why are you even running rc.firewall if it does not do what you want? You are asking me the very question that *I* have been asking myself since my "upgrade" to 12.0. Why is /etc/rc.firewall even being executed? I never explicitly asked for that, but that seems to just be a by-product of how things are arranged these days.... a by-product that I have no direct control over. >Just set firewall_script=3D"/path/to/script" and your good to go, no ipv6 >anywhere to be found. That is *not* what the Handbook says. Please read it. https://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/firewalls-ipf= w.html The way that I am reading section 30.4.1 is that it is telling the user to put BOTH of these things into /etc/rc.conf: firewall_enable=3D"YES" firewall_type=3D"path-to-my-rules-file" And indeed, that is -exactly- what I have done on my prior FreeBSD systems= ... enable *and* configure. One or the other of those /etc/rc.conf lines nowadays apparently triggers /etc/rc.firewall to run. I never explicitly asked for that to run, but it did anyway. I am just going with the flow. Regards, rfg