Daniel Hartmeier wrote: > Then, people will not agree whether 10:20 or 10><20 is prettier, and > further variations will be suggested. 10:20 is actually 9><21. > 10<>20 would be odd at best for redirections. If you replace a:b with > a><b in the from/to port part of the rdr rule, what syntax do you use > for the replacement port (the one after the arrow)? 'a><b -> a:*' > seems inconsistent, too. So, a><*? There's more stuff like that > around the corner. > > The code change within pf is trivial, reaching a strong consensus > probably not. It's hardly a severe problem, so the energy might be > better spent elsewhere. ;)
Sorry, it's early, I am on my first cup of coffee and about to drive miles to go change an in-the-process-of-breaking scsi root disk on a Saturday when I should be in bed... Why can't we support both formats ? From the quick (as excused above) glance at pf.conf(5), the rdr syntax is only "port x:y" while is it block/pass that has the complex backward compatibility. Or it the problem that you can't put the "old" ranges into macros ? OTOH What would be wrong with allowing the "x:y" syntax *additionally* in the pass/block rules ? (Yawn...) -- Peter
