Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sun, 18 Mar 2018 09:28:24 +0000
Subject:   [Bug 180731] [ipfw] problem with displaying address in ipfw table
Message-ID:  <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References:  <>

Next in thread | Previous in thread | Raw E-Mail | Index | Archive | Help

Rodney W. Grimes <> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
           Severity|Affects Only Me             |Affects Some People
                 CC|                            |

--- Comment #4 from Rodney W. Grimes <> ---
This is probably the same as in

I understand a desire to have the, but this is really a
degenerate form in both bug reports of as that already covers t=
range in its use, the 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.

You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.=

Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <>