Problem with ipfw table add 0.0.0.0/8

[Marcelo Gondim]

Em 17/05/14 10:44, Alexander V. Chernikov escreveu:
> On 13.05.2014 16:05, Dennis Yusupoff wrote:
>> I think that universal table for all kind of data (ipv4, ipv6, ports,
>> etc) is a bad idea by design. At least unless you haven't any ability to
> It is not always "universal" in kernel.
> Actually, different radix tables are used to store both IPv4 and IPv6 
> in single table.
>> specify address family on add, to avoid attempts to guess what user
>> meant. Something like "ipfw table X add DEEF.DE ipv6".
> I'm going to add explicit table type/naming setup soon.
> Idea is the following:
>
> 1) Existing table can be named and addressed by either number or name.
> However, you still need to assign table number manually.
>
> 2) Table type/name can be specified explicitly via one of the 
> following commands:
> * ipfw table 1 create [type <cidr|u32|ifindex|iface>] [name "table_name"]
> * ipfw table <num|name> name "table_name"
> * ipfw table "table_name" type <cidr|u32|ifindex|iface>
>
> 3) ipfw(8) stops trying to guess appropriate type based on used value. 
> Instead,
> it requests table type from kernel and interprets value according to 
> returned type.
> Default type for all tables is cidr
>
> 4) Table(s) can be returned to default values using ipfw table 
> <num|all|name> destroy.
> Destroy means:
> * flush
> * table tries (or other structures) freed
> * type set to cidr
>
>
>>
>>
>> 13.05.2014 14:32, Alexander V. Chernikov пишет:
>>> On 13.05.2014 13:46, Dennis Yusupoff wrote:
>>>> May be this will help? See answer on
>>>> http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=bin/189471
>>> I'll try to fix it within a few days.
> Fixed in r266310.
The problem still exists.

# ipfw table 99 add 0.0.0.0/8
# ipfw table 99 list
::/8 0

# uname -a
FreeBSD mail.xxxxxx.com.br 10.0-STABLE FreeBSD 10.0-STABLE #8 r266370: 
Sat May 17 19:57:23 BRT 2014 
root at mail.xxxxxx.br:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/GONDIM  amd64

Cheers,