From owner-freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org Thu Feb 9 17:11:25 2017 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-bugs@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B138CCD6F55 for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2017 17:11:25 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org (kenobi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::16:76]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 86DA219BD for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2017 17:11:25 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from bugs.freebsd.org ([127.0.1.118]) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id v19HBPGi072157 for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2017 17:11:25 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 216942] rc.firewall simple rule ::/96 Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2017 17:11:25 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: AssignedTo X-Bugzilla-Type: new X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: Base System X-Bugzilla-Component: conf X-Bugzilla-Version: 11.0-RELEASE X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: Affects Only Me X-Bugzilla-Who: jasonmader@gmail.com X-Bugzilla-Status: New X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: --- X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: bug_id short_desc product version rep_platform op_sys bug_status bug_severity priority component assigned_to reporter cc Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-BeenThere: freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: Bug reports List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2017 17:11:25 -0000 https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D216942 Bug ID: 216942 Summary: rc.firewall simple rule ::/96 Product: Base System Version: 11.0-RELEASE Hardware: amd64 OS: Any Status: New Severity: Affects Only Me Priority: --- Component: conf Assignee: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org Reporter: jasonmader@gmail.com CC: freebsd-amd64@FreeBSD.org CC: freebsd-amd64@FreeBSD.org /etc/rc.firewall SIMPLE sets a couple of IPv6 rules, # Disallow packets to malicious IPv4 compatible prefix. deny all from ::224.0.0.0/100 to any via ${oif6} deny all from any to ::224.0.0.0/100 via ${oif6} deny all from ::127.0.0.0/104 to any via ${oif6} deny all from any to ::127.0.0.0/104 via ${oif6} deny all from ::0.0.0.0/104 to any via ${oif6} deny all from any to ::0.0.0.0/104 via ${oif6} deny all from ::255.0.0.0/104 to any via ${oif6} deny all from any to ::255.0.0.0/104 via ${oif6} deny all from ::0.0.0.0/96 to any via ${oif6} deny all from any to ::0.0.0.0/96 via ${oif6} and a search showed these came from the pages of IPv6 Network Administratio= n: Teaching the Turtle to Dance. But isn't the second section denying ::0.0.0.= 0/96 redundant to the first section, since all the specific IPv4 compatible addresses are subnets of ::/96? It seems from the book that you would deny ::0.0.0.0/96 if you do not plan = to use any compatible addresses, or the others if you were planning to use compatible addresses. Not both at the same time as the simple configuration adds. --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.=