From owner-freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Wed Jun 19 16:10:11 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 3169215BD3DA; Wed, 19 Jun 2019 16:10:11 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd-rwg@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net) Received: from gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (br1.CN84in.dnsmgr.net [69.59.192.140]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4899D6C817; Wed, 19 Jun 2019 16:10:10 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd-rwg@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net) Received: from gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id x5JGA7jT018858; Wed, 19 Jun 2019 09:10:07 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from freebsd-rwg@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net) Received: (from freebsd-rwg@localhost) by gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (8.13.3/8.13.3/Submit) id x5JGA7Ep018857; Wed, 19 Jun 2019 09:10:07 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from freebsd-rwg) From: "Rodney W. Grimes" Message-Id: <201906191610.x5JGA7Ep018857@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> Subject: Re: Eliminating IPv6 (?) In-Reply-To: <23511.1560884385@segfault.tristatelogic.com> To: "Ronald F. Guilmette" Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2019 09:10:07 -0700 (PDT) CC: freebsd-net@freebsd.org, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL121h (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4899D6C817 X-Spamd-Bar: ++ Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org X-Spamd-Result: default: False [2.57 / 15.00]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; RCPT_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[3]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[]; IP_SCORE(0.04)[ip: (0.15), ipnet: 69.59.192.0/19(0.07), asn: 13868(0.05), country: US(-0.06)]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; RCVD_TLS_LAST(0.00)[]; DMARC_NA(0.00)[dnsmgr.net]; AUTH_NA(1.00)[]; NEURAL_SPAM_MEDIUM(0.22)[0.216,0]; RCVD_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[3]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_SOME(0.00)[]; NEURAL_SPAM_SHORT(0.54)[0.537,0]; MX_GOOD(-0.01)[cached: gndrsh.dnsmgr.net]; NEURAL_SPAM_LONG(0.89)[0.887,0]; R_SPF_NA(0.00)[]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; R_DKIM_NA(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; ASN(0.00)[asn:13868, ipnet:69.59.192.0/19, country:US]; MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00)[]; 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: Wed, 19 Jun 2019 16:10:11 -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 Thank you. -- Rod Grimes rgrimes@freebsd.org