Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Mon, 1 Aug 2016 19:28:33 +1000 (EST)
From:      Ian Smith <smithi@nimnet.asn.au>
To:        Kevin Oberman <rkoberman@gmail.com>
Cc:        FreeBSD-STABLE Mailing List <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>, freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: Significant missing item in 11.0 release notes
Message-ID:  <20160801191550.J29054@sola.nimnet.asn.au>
In-Reply-To: <CAN6yY1t4CoG1DSN1bJJTfUxjQJxWR=k0Lr3gx0v0Wvu=LmMhpw@mail.gmail.com>
References:  <CAN6yY1t4CoG1DSN1bJJTfUxjQJxWR=k0Lr3gx0v0Wvu=LmMhpw@mail.gmail.com>

Next in thread | Previous in thread | Raw E-Mail | Index | Archive | Help
On Sun, 31 Jul 2016 12:28:06 -0700, Kevin Oberman wrote:

 > This morning I updated my min user system from 10.3-Stable to 11.0-BETA3.
 > In general, things went well, but I had two issues that prevented the
 > network from operating. the first is a lack of documentation in the Release
 > Notes and the second is a driver issue. Since they are in no way related,
 > I'll send the report of the driver issue later.
 > 
 > I use ipfw(8) tables in my firewall configuration. Unfortunately, 11.0 has
 > introduced a totally re-worked tables structure. The new structure is
 > awesome and I read about it at the time the changes were being planned and
 > implemented, but had forgotten. As a result the very first line in my
 > configuration, "table 1 flush" was no longer valid and the remainder of the
 > file was ignored.
 > 
 > I assumed that I had missed this in the release notes, but I can find no
 > reference to this significant change that simultaneously greatly enhanced
 > ipfw table functionality, but also broke my configuration. While the fix
 > was trivial, if the Release Notes had addressed this, I would not have had
 > the problem in the first place.

I don't see this as a Release Notes issue - though I guess it will be if 
it cannot be quickly fixed before 11.0-RELEASE - but as a very serious 
and -  as far as I know - unreported regression in ipfw(8).

In 18 years I cannot recall any addition of features, or additional 
options for existing features, that caused any breakage of existing 
rulesets.  What on earth could be invalid about "table 1 flush"?

cc'ing ipfw@, which is most likely where this should be discussed ..

cheers, Ian



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <http://docs.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20160801191550.J29054>