From owner-freebsd-pf@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Mar 26 20:00:21 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-pf@hub.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66080106566B for ; Sat, 26 Mar 2011 20:00:21 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::28]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F2A78FC16 for ; Sat, 26 Mar 2011 20:00:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p2QK0KRA019629 for ; Sat, 26 Mar 2011 20:00:20 GMT (envelope-from gnats@freefall.freebsd.org) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.4/8.14.4/Submit) id p2QK0KSG019628; Sat, 26 Mar 2011 20:00:20 GMT (envelope-from gnats) Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2011 20:00:20 GMT Message-Id: <201103262000.p2QK0KSG019628@freefall.freebsd.org> To: freebsd-pf@FreeBSD.org From: "Eugene M. Zheganin" Cc: Subject: Re: kern/155945: [pf] [ip6] pf match engine is broken with ipv6 X-BeenThere: freebsd-pf@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: "Eugene M. Zheganin" List-Id: "Technical discussion and general questions about packet filter \(pf\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2011 20:00:21 -0000 The following reply was made to PR kern/155945; it has been noted by GNATS. From: "Eugene M. Zheganin" To: bug-followup@FreeBSD.org Cc: Subject: Re: kern/155945: [pf] [ip6] pf match engine is broken with ipv6 Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2011 00:12:22 +0500 Yes, I does. Thank you. So, does this mean it's not a bug ? To be honest, I fugured out this solution by myself a few hours earlier. In my defense I should say that is referenced in pf.conf manual page only 2 times (for the whole article) and it's quite difficult to fugure out that thing by myself. Earlier I encountered similar problem with ipfw, which was even weirder (you have to put proto ipv6 at the end of the rule, where it means 'inner proto', but not at the beginning of the rule, where it means something different). I think at least documentation should be made more clear. Sorry for your time; thanks for the answer. Eugene.