Netgate Discussion Forum
    • Categories
    • Recent
    • Tags
    • Popular
    • Users
    • Search
    • Register
    • Login

    Bug ? Can't add Reject UDP Rule.

    Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Firewalling
    5 Posts 2 Posters 1.5k Views
    Loading More Posts
    • Oldest to Newest
    • Newest to Oldest
    • Most Votes
    Reply
    • Reply as topic
    Log in to reply
    This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
    • A Offline
      alexis.olivier
      last edited by

      Hello everybody,

      From latest versions, I can't add new Reject rule in UDP, giving the error :

      Reject type rules only works when the protocol is set to TCP.
      

      But, i got older Reject rules in UDP working fine, and the help under the Action combobox say that it will send an "ICMP port unreachable for UDP".
      Exemple :

      # tcpdump -i igb0 host W.X.Y.Z and \( udp or icmp \)
      tcpdump: verbose output suppressed, use -v or -vv for full protocol decode
      listening on igb0, link-type EN10MB (Ethernet), capture size 96 bytes
      10:48:08.701998 IP W.X.Y.Z.63448 > A.B.C.D.1194: UDP, length 23
      10:48:08.702014 IP A.B.C.D.75 > W.X.Y.Z: ICMP A.B.C.D udp port 1194 unreachable, length 36
      

      Version :
      2.1-DEVELOPMENT  (i386)
      built on Wed Sep 7 13:03:07 EDT 2011

      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • P Offline
        podilarius
        last edited by

        First the disclaimer, that is a development build and everything is not guaranteed to work properly.
        Second, I just created a reject rule in 2.0 Release with UDP only and it created it with no problem.

        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • A Offline
          alexis.olivier
          last edited by

          Thanks for your answer.

          Is it normal that this function is disabled in v2.1 ?
          I just wanted a confirmation before filing a bug in the bugtracker. :)

          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • P Offline
            podilarius
            last edited by

            It is probably not normal, but it could have been done for the IPV6 piece in 2.1. I am guessing that is why you are using 2.1, right?

            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • A Offline
              alexis.olivier
              last edited by

              Yes ! I'll look further into IPv6 commits.

              Thanks !

              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • First post
                Last post
              Copyright 2025 Rubicon Communications LLC (Netgate). All rights reserved.