From owner-freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org Sat Feb 29 18:53:30 2020 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-bugs@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6410026579F for ; Sat, 29 Feb 2020 18:53:30 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (mailman.nyi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::50:13]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48VFt14w8vz42nP for ; Sat, 29 Feb 2020 18:53:29 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) id 4AA7D26579E; Sat, 29 Feb 2020 18:53:29 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: bugs@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49CE326579D for ; Sat, 29 Feb 2020 18:53:29 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org (mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:3]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org", Issuer "Let's Encrypt Authority X3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 48VFt06hR2z42lw for ; Sat, 29 Feb 2020 18:53:28 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org (kenobi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::50:1d]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 961F31F2D2 for ; Sat, 29 Feb 2020 18:53:28 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org ([127.0.1.5]) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 01TIrS7Z040284 for ; Sat, 29 Feb 2020 18:53:28 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: (from www@localhost) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id 01TIrSPB040281 for bugs@FreeBSD.org; Sat, 29 Feb 2020 18:53:28 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) X-Authentication-Warning: kenobi.freebsd.org: www set sender to bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org using -f From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 244514] "reply-to" function in pf breaks RFC 1122 section 3.3.1.1 Local/Remote Decision Date: Sat, 29 Feb 2020 18:53:28 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: AssignedTo X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: Base System X-Bugzilla-Component: kern X-Bugzilla-Version: Unspecified X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: Affects Some People X-Bugzilla-Who: kp@freebsd.org X-Bugzilla-Status: Closed X-Bugzilla-Resolution: Works As Intended X-Bugzilla-Priority: --- X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: bugs@FreeBSD.org X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: cc resolution bug_status Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: 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: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Bug reports List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 29 Feb 2020 18:53:30 -0000 https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D244514 Kristof Provost changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |kp@freebsd.org Resolution|--- |Works As Intended Status|New |Closed --- Comment #2 from Kristof Provost --- I'm sorry, but this is pf behaving exactly as documented and expected. pf has been configured to send replies via gateway 192.168.169.254 on vtnet= 0, and that's what it does. The administrator has defined policy for those packets, and that's that pf is for: enforcing network administrator policy. One could similarly argue that every block drop rule also violates RFCs (in that we don't send an error message for closed ports). Administrator policy trumps the RFC. If you don't want pf to send certain reply packets via gateway 192.168.169.= 254 on vtnet0 that can be configured. --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.=