[CFT] new tables for ipfw

[Willem Jan Withagen]

On 14-8-2014 14:46, Lee Dilkie wrote:
> 
> 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.

I agree, but ipfw does not understand [2001:4cb8:3:1::1] last time I tried.
So I think you rephrased what I meant to say.

Thanx,
--WjW