From owner-freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org Mon Aug 1 17:03:02 2016 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ipfw@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 73926BAB348; Mon, 1 Aug 2016 17:03:02 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from smithi@nimnet.asn.au) Received: from sola.nimnet.asn.au (paqi.nimnet.asn.au [115.70.110.159]) (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 F08B8114C; Mon, 1 Aug 2016 17:03:01 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from smithi@nimnet.asn.au) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sola.nimnet.asn.au (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id u71H2uGV056832; Tue, 2 Aug 2016 03:02:57 +1000 (EST) (envelope-from smithi@nimnet.asn.au) Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2016 03:02:56 +1000 (EST) From: Ian Smith To: "Andrey V. Elsukov" cc: Kevin Oberman , freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org, FreeBSD-STABLE Mailing List Subject: Re: Significant missing item in 11.0 release notes In-Reply-To: <921fa5a6-5cbf-a7d4-3306-090d16195491@yandex.ru> Message-ID: <20160802023424.W29054@sola.nimnet.asn.au> References: <3b44dbc7-95c9-b529-c1a4-47a4af0774cf@yandex.ru> <20160802012633.X29054@sola.nimnet.asn.au> <921fa5a6-5cbf-a7d4-3306-090d16195491@yandex.ru> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-BeenThere: freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: IPFW Technical Discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2016 17:03:02 -0000 On Mon, 1 Aug 2016 18:47:37 +0300, Andrey V. Elsukov wrote: > On 01.08.16 18:43, Ian Smith wrote: > > Fast work Andrey, and sorry for rushing in. I ASSumed, after reading > > the new tables section in 11.0-R ipfw(8), that Kevin had run into: > > > > Tables require explicit creation via create before use. > > > > but diving - not too deeply - into the log of /head/sbin/ipfw/tables.c > > from your commit, I think that statement must be out of date, at least > > regarding existing ruleset table configuration? Is that right? > > If you want to use some new specific feature you need to create table > explicitly. But for old rules generic tables will be created > automatically (with warning). Exactly how I was hoped it would work, thankyou .. cheers, Ian