[CFT] new tables for ipfw

[Lee Dilkie]

On 8/14/2014 08:08, Willem Jan Withagen wrote:
> I've found the notation ipnr:something rather frustrating when using
> ipv6 addresses. Sort of like typing a ipv6 address in a browser, the
> last :xx is always interpreted as portnumber, UNLESS you wrap it in []'s.
> compare
>     2001:4cb8:3:1::1
>     2001:4cb8:3:1::1:80
>     [2001:4cb8:3:1::1]:80
> The first and the last are the same host but a different port, the
> middle one is just a different host.
>
> Could/should we do the same in ipfw?

the first and second forms are valid, but as ipv6 addresses *with no port*,

The third is an ipv6 address with a port.

If the intent of the second form is an address and port, it will not be
parsed that way by standard parsers and violates the ivp6 addressing rfc's.

-lee