similar to: [Bug 616] Duplicate rules for multi-homed hostnames. IPv4 and IPv6 inconsistent treatment.

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/show_bug.cgi?id=616 Phil Oester <netfilter at linuxace.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |RESOLVED Resolution| |WONTFIX --- Comment #10 from Phil Oester

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/show_bug.cgi?id=616 --- Comment #4 from Phil Oester <netfilter at linuxace.com> 2013-07-08 23:33:07 CEST --- As noted, #2 is solved already. Also, /128 will no longer print (commit 945353a2). But your #1 makes little sense to me: discovery.razor.cloudmark.com/22. How do you know that EVERY IP returned from a DNS lookup is always going to be a /22 mask?

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/show_bug.cgi?id=616 --- Comment #6 from Phil Oester <netfilter at linuxace.com> 2013-07-09 03:50:27 CEST --- Yes, I fully understand what is happening in the one specific example you have provided. However you need to answer what happens if Cloudmark suddenly decides to add an IP _OUTSIDE_ of that /22 that is assigned to them. Let's say they open a new

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/show_bug.cgi?id=616 --- Comment #8 from Phil Oester <netfilter at linuxace.com> 2013-07-09 15:56:45 CEST --- (In reply to comment #7) > It is the duty of the software to properly execute that policy. Here, the > software fails to do so because it produces duplicate redundant rules which are > never used. And where is it documented that the software

http://bugzilla.netfilter.org/show_bug.cgi?id=616 Summary: Duplicate rules for multi-homed hostnames. IPv4 and IPv6 inconsistent treatment. Product: iptables Version: unspecified Platform: i386 OS/Version: All Status: NEW Severity: minor Priority: P4 Component: iptables

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/show_bug.cgi?id=616 --- Comment #11 from - <kd6lvw at yahoo.com> 2013-07-09 21:48:05 CEST --- I fully disagree that the addition of duplicate rules that will never be reached is part of the design. As a waste of memory allocation, it is inefficient and therefore incorrect. The use of a hostname in place of an IP address literal should not have any effect in

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/show_bug.cgi?id=616 --- Comment #5 from - <kd6lvw at yahoo.com> 2013-07-09 03:45:06 CEST --- Re: Comment #4. One doesn't know what the addresses are until they are retrieved from the DNS. The point is that the routines which generate the rules are NOT checking the values AFTER the CIDR netmask is applied to eliminate POST-MASK duplicate answers. The

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/show_bug.cgi?id=616 --- Comment #7 from - <kd6lvw at yahoo.com> 2013-07-09 09:35:30 CEST --- Re: Comment #6 - It is up to the author of the ruleset to determine policy. It is the duty of the software to properly execute that policy. Here, the software fails to do so because it produces duplicate redundant rules which are never used. Note that iptables-save

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/show_bug.cgi?id=616 --- Comment #9 from - <kd6lvw at yahoo.com> 2013-07-09 19:56:29 CEST --- RE: Comment #7: "It seems your best solution is to add a single rule with 208.83.136.0/22." Yet, it adds THREE rules, two of which will never fire, thus the problem and bug report. Extend your quota example: When the first rule reaches the quota, it will

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/show_bug.cgi?id=812 Phil Oester <netfilter at linuxace.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC| |netfilter at linuxace.com Resolution|

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/show_bug.cgi?id=751 Phil Oester <netfilter at linuxace.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |netfilter at linuxace.com --- Comment #4 from Phil Oester <netfilter at linuxace.com> 2013-06-05

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/show_bug.cgi?id=663 Phil Oester <netfilter at linuxace.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |netfilter at linuxace.com --- Comment #2 from Phil Oester <netfilter at linuxace.com> 2013-06-21

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/show_bug.cgi?id=773 Phil Oester <netfilter at linuxace.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC|jengelh at medozas.de |netfilter at linuxace.com Resolution|

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/show_bug.cgi?id=790 Phil Oester <netfilter at linuxace.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |netfilter at linuxace.com --- Comment #4 from Phil Oester <netfilter at linuxace.com> 2013-06-20

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/show_bug.cgi?id=580 Phil Oester <netfilter at linuxace.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC| |netfilter at linuxace.com Resolution|

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/show_bug.cgi?id=663 Phil Oester <netfilter at linuxace.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution| |INVALID --- Comment #3 from Phil Oester

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/show_bug.cgi?id=751 Phil Oester <netfilter at linuxace.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution| |INVALID --- Comment #11 from Phil Oester

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/show_bug.cgi?id=823 Summary: IPv6 NAT memory leaking Product: netfilter/iptables Version: unspecified Platform: x86_64 OS/Version: other Status: NEW Severity: critical Priority: P5 Component: ip6_tables (kernel) AssignedTo: netfilter-buglog at lists.netfilter.org

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/show_bug.cgi?id=851 Summary: IPv6 SNAT target with --random doesn't work Product: netfilter/iptables Version: unspecified Platform: x86_64 OS/Version: All Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P5 Component: NAT AssignedTo: netfilter-buglog at lists.netfilter.org

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/show_bug.cgi?id=630 Phil Oester <netfilter at linuxace.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |netfilter at linuxace.com AssignedTo|pablo at netfilter.org |netfilter-buglog at lists.netf