From owner-freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org Sun Mar 18 05:32:25 2018 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ipfw@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1ED69F5F8A7 for ; Sun, 18 Mar 2018 05:32:25 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from mxrelay.ysv.freebsd.org (mxrelay.ysv.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "mxrelay.ysv.freebsd.org", Issuer "Let's Encrypt Authority X3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AAEC07FE83 for ; Sun, 18 Mar 2018 05:32:24 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org (kenobi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::16:76]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mxrelay.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EE5F0144D3 for ; Sun, 18 Mar 2018 05:32:23 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org ([127.0.1.118]) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id w2I5WNDP065388 for ; Sun, 18 Mar 2018 05:32:23 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: (from www@localhost) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id w2I5WNes065386 for freebsd-ipfw@FreeBSD.org; Sun, 18 Mar 2018 05:32:23 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: freebsd-ipfw@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 226688] [ipfw] rejects adding 255.255.255.255 to a table Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2018 05:32:23 +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: 11.1-RELEASE X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: Affects Some People X-Bugzilla-Who: de0u+fbbugs@andrew.cmu.edu X-Bugzilla-Status: New X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: --- X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: freebsd-ipfw@FreeBSD.org X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 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-ipfw@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.25 Precedence: list List-Id: IPFW Technical Discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2018 05:32:25 -0000 https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D226688 --- Comment #5 from Dave Eckhardt --- (In reply to Rodney W. Grimes from comment #4) I agree that workarounds are possible. For example, if some values won't fit into a table, it is possible to handle those values via a separate rule check. But firewall rule systems are hard enough to understand if they work the way they are documented as working. Random misbehaviors, even if survivable, make the system much harder to understand. Again please see bug #180731 which is a different problem with the same "odd" value (it seems as if on amd64 machines you can get the value into the table but you can't see it once it's there). I guess I would argue against closing either bug, on the grounds that it/they might make a nice starter project for somebody looking to do serious work on ipfw. Thanks for looking at my report so quickly! --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.=