https://redmine.pfsense.org/https://redmine.pfsense.org/favicon.ico?16780521162013-02-05T12:36:27ZpfSense bugtrackerpfSense - Bug #2598: reply-to on IPv4+6 rules breaks v6https://redmine.pfsense.org/issues/2598?journal_id=105092013-02-05T12:36:27ZErmal Luçieri@pfsense.org
<ul><li><strong>Status</strong> changed from <i>New</i> to <i>Feedback</i></li></ul><p>Patch committed.</p> pfSense - Bug #2598: reply-to on IPv4+6 rules breaks v6https://redmine.pfsense.org/issues/2598?journal_id=105102013-02-05T12:40:10ZErmal Luçieri@pfsense.org
<ul><li><strong>% Done</strong> changed from <i>0</i> to <i>100</i></li></ul><p>Applied in changeset <a class="changeset" title="Fixes #2598. In case the rule is both for v4 and v6 generate 2 rules for each family. This is the..." href="https://redmine.pfsense.org/projects/pfsense/repository/2/revisions/f73e35319a7f36c761cadac132c2f3484103b88f">f73e35319a7f36c761cadac132c2f3484103b88f</a>.</p> pfSense - Bug #2598: reply-to on IPv4+6 rules breaks v6https://redmine.pfsense.org/issues/2598?journal_id=109132013-02-25T08:48:03ZBernhard Lichtingerbernhard.lichtinger@lrz.de
<ul></ul><p>This works now for dualstack rules on WAN. But it also creates 2 separate rules on other (OPT) interfaces for dual-stack rules, which is not needed. But I think it does not harm either.<br />Checked on 2.1-BETA1 (amd64) built on Sun Feb 24 10:55:18 EST 2013</p> pfSense - Bug #2598: reply-to on IPv4+6 rules breaks v6https://redmine.pfsense.org/issues/2598?journal_id=109142013-02-25T09:20:19ZJim Pingle
<ul><li><strong>Status</strong> changed from <i>Feedback</i> to <i>Resolved</i></li></ul><p>It creates two rules because it has to. On WAN without the default gateway it needs to add reply-to on the rules separately, the IPv4 rule needs the IPv4 gateway, on IPv6 it needs the IPv6 gateway. Can't do that in a single rule, so it's working as intended.</p>