Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 16:05:56 +0400 From: Dennis Yusupoff <dyr@smartspb.net> To: FreeBSD Net <freebsd-net@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Problem with ipfw table add 0.0.0.0/8 Message-ID: <53720AA4.80909@smartspb.net> In-Reply-To: <5371F4C8.3080501@FreeBSD.org> References: <5371084F.1060009@bsdinfo.com.br> <F78BF3AC-F031-4528-A4C1-5B22E88CEC00@dataix.net> <5371112B.2030209@bsdinfo.com.br> <5371E9E7.70400@smartspb.net> <5371F4C8.3080501@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
I think that universal table for all kind of data (ipv4, ipv6, ports, etc) is a bad idea by design. At least unless you haven't any ability to specify address family on add, to avoid attempts to guess what user meant. Something like "ipfw table X add DEEF.DE ipv6". 13.05.2014 14:32, Alexander V. Chernikov пишет: > On 13.05.2014 13:46, Dennis Yusupoff wrote: >> May be this will help? See answer on >> http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=bin/189471 > I'll try to fix it within a few days. > > The problem itself happens due to the fact that every CIDR table > address is packed into IPv6 address and IPv4 ones are encoded as > deprecated IPv6-compatible ones. > this leads to the problems with decoding things like 0/X or ::1 -- Best regards, Dennis Yusupoff, network engineer of Smart-Telecom ISP Russia, Saint-Petersburg
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?53720AA4.80909>