Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2019 01:01:04 +0000 From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: ipfw@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 238694] Configuring & using a customized IPFW rule set now causes additional rules to be (involuntarily) added Message-ID: <bug-238694-8303-ho0fspxqux@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> In-Reply-To: <bug-238694-8303@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> References: <bug-238694-8303@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D238694 --- Comment #12 from rkoberman@gmail.com --- I am now very curious as to what changed in 12.0 that triggered new behavio= r. I just looked at the repo and the inclusion of these IPv6 rules happened a de= cade ago... on Dec 2, 2009. It is almost completely untouched since then.So why = had it suddenly been noticed? I believe that the issue is that it was NOT suppo= sed to happen unless IPv6 is enabled due to the "[ $ipv6_available -eq 0 ] || return 0" that, I assume was intended to have these rules added only when I= Pv6 was not on. It looks like something else changed in 12 that caused ipv6_available to be set to 1 even though IPv6 is not available. (I need to look at other scripts to find out about this). This also applies to the IPv6 loopback rules.The first incarnation I can fi= nd for this was in 1997, but the version in which it was changed=20 back in 1997, but it was changed prior to that in a commit (15027) that does not seem to be in the repo. So, I now agree that there is a bug here, both in the code and in the documentation. --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-238694-8303-ho0fspxqux>