Basic problem is that I sometimes make mistakes that are obvious in retrospect. :-} So I tend to hack the firewall script with which I start to add at "-t" flag, which prefixes each command with "echo". That way, when it's run with "-t", I can see what ipfw (or ip6fw) commands will be executed. Basically, I thought that this might be useful to others. And yeah, I got tired of hacking it in myself each time. :-} If all else fails, consider it a teaching aid. :-) Fix: Here you go. I haven't actually used the rc.firewall6, but after hacking it, I did verify that I could make it spit out commands (and that they even looked plausible). Oh -- sorry; I don't have immediate access to a powered-on -CURRENT box right now. The below ought to work just fine in -CURRENT, though. And my feelings won't be hurt if you use a different way to cause the "test" invocation. "-t" just seemed mnemonic to me. Season to taste; serve when done well. How-To-Repeat: N/A
Responsible Changed From-To: freebsd-bugs->freebsd-rc Over to maintainer(s).
State Changed From-To: open->analyzed I think that this could be useful. Instead though I've made it just depend on the value of $firewall_test; for example that could go into rc.conf. Would you still like to see this go in? http://www.bayofrum.net/~crees/patches/58939.diff
batch change: For bugs that match the following - Status Is In progress AND - Untouched since 2018-01-01. AND - Affects Base System OR Documentation DO: Reset to open status. Note: I did a quick pass but if you are getting this email it might be worthwhile to double check to see if this bug ought to be closed.
Keyword: patch or patch-ready – in lieu of summary line prefix: [patch] * bulk change for the keyword * summary lines may be edited manually (not in bulk). Keyword descriptions and search interface: <https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/describekeywords.cgi>
Cc:ing David's current account. I think this is long since OBE. There's no rc.firewall6 anymore, for example. I'll let David decide whether or not to keep this open or not, but I'd recommend just closing it.
(In reply to Warner Losh from comment #5) Hmmm, Chris' patch looks to be good and in the modern style. But I'll still let dhw decide :)
Just back from being off-Net for a fortnight or so, so it's plausible a grain or two of salt is appropriate. That said, if others find the general idea useful, I think it would be worth implementing. I'm quite agnostic about the implementation details: Chris's approach is fine for me.