Re: ipfw2.c,v 1.76.2.17

2008-12-02 Thread Andrey V. Elsukov
02.12.08, 18:02, "pluknet" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Since this revision (appeared in 6.3) I think ipfw violates POLA. > I mean "ipfw table N list" shows values of table in Internet '.' notation. > A friend of mine was surprised to found Internet representation > of this "optional 32-bit unsigned valu

Re: ipfw2.c,v 1.76.2.17

2008-12-02 Thread pluknet
2008/12/2 Andrey V. Elsukov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > 02.12.08, 18:02, "pluknet" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> Since this revision (appeared in 6.3) I think ipfw violates POLA. >> I mean "ipfw table N list" shows values of table in Internet '.' notation. >> A friend of mine was surprised to found Internet r

Re: ipfw2.c,v 1.76.2.17

2008-12-02 Thread Eugene Grosbein
On Tue, Dec 02, 2008 at 06:02:16PM +0300, pluknet wrote: > Since this revision (appeared in 6.3) I think ipfw violates POLA. > I mean "ipfw table N list" shows values of table in Internet '.' notation. > > A friend of mine was surprised to found Internet representation > of this "optional 32-bit

ipfw2.c,v 1.76.2.17

2008-12-02 Thread pluknet
Hi. Since this revision (appeared in 6.3) I think ipfw violates POLA. I mean "ipfw table N list" shows values of table in Internet '.' notation. A friend of mine was surprised to found Internet representation of this "optional 32-bit unsigned value". For example security/bruteblock stores unix t