[Bug 278039] ipfw: can't add the address ::/128 to a table

https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=278039

--- Comment #2 from Joshua Kinard <freebsd@kumba.dev> ---
Looking at it a bit more, I think this is related to Bug #226688, where you
can't add IPv4 255.255.255.255 to a table, either:
> # ipfw set 2 table test1 create
> # ipfw set 2 table test1 add 255.255.255.255
> error: 255.255.255.255/32 0
> ipfw: Adding record failed: Invalid argument

On a whim, I tried adding the IPv6 equivalent, and that also fails:
> # ipfw set 2 table test1 add ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff
> error: ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff/128 0
> ipfw: Adding record failed: Invalid argument

But you can add, numerically, the address directly below that:
> # ipfw set 2 table test1 add ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff:fffe
> added: ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff:fffe/128 0

Going back to IPv4, the same applies for 0.0.0.0/32:
> # ipfw set 2 table test1 add 0.0.0.0
> error: 0.0.0.0/32 0
> ipfw: Adding record failed: Invalid argument

But like Lexi highlights, change the CIDR, and it accepts it:
> # ipfw set 2 table test1 add 0.0.0.0/31
> added: 0.0.0.0/31 0

The last item is functionally the same as adding 0.0.0.1, or in the IPv6 case,
::1.

So it feels like there is a range check somewhere that's doing "x > 0" and/or
"x < MAX", when it should be using >= or <=, cause functionally, ::/0.0.0.0 and
255.255.255.255/ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff are just fancy ways of
representing 0 and 2^32-1/2^128-1.

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