Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2018 09:28:24 +0000 From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: freebsd-ipfw@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 180731] [ipfw] problem with displaying 255.255.255.255 address in ipfw table Message-ID: <bug-180731-7515-MZDF9YTWBw@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> In-Reply-To: <bug-180731-7515@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> References: <bug-180731-7515@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=3D180731 Rodney W. Grimes <rgrimes@FreeBSD.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Severity|Affects Only Me |Affects Some People CC| |rgrimes@FreeBSD.org --- Comment #4 from Rodney W. Grimes <rgrimes@FreeBSD.org> --- This is probably the same as in https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D226688. I understand a desire to have the 255.255.255.255, but this is really a degenerate form in both bug reports of 240.0.0.0/4 as that already covers t= his range in its use, the 255.255.255.255 is not needed in the table in any way= , it servers no additional purpose. The example here though does not include 240/4 for some reason, which it probably should be in the table if they are attempting to block reserved or unlikely to be in use IP addresses. I agree there is a bug, but I also assert that it is a very low priority to spend a great deal of effort to fix. If there is a simple fix in the radix code or an interface error has been made, then great, lets get it fixed. --=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-180731-7515-MZDF9YTWBw>