route-to rules take an ip now, not an interface with optional ip.

they now also only work on keep state rules, so there's even more
errors from the parser to expect.

reminded by bluhm@

diff --git a/regress/sbin/pfctl/pfail8.in b/regress/sbin/pfctl/pfail8.in
index 09a0bee..cd07dbf 100644 (file)
--- a/regress/sbin/pfctl/pfail8.in
+++ b/regress/sbin/pfctl/pfail8.in
@@ -1,3 +1,3 @@
-block in quick on tun1000000 from any to 192.168.1.0/24 dup-to (tun1000001 fec0::1)
-block in quick on tun1000000 from any to fec0::1/128 dup-to (tun1000001 192.168.1.1)
+block in quick on tun1000000 from any to 192.168.1.0/24 dup-to fec0::1
+block in quick on tun1000000 from any to fec0::1/128 dup-to 192.168.1.1
 

diff --git a/regress/sbin/pfctl/pfail8.ok b/regress/sbin/pfctl/pfail8.ok
index a5e63a1..fd5eab6 100644 (file)
--- a/regress/sbin/pfctl/pfail8.ok
+++ b/regress/sbin/pfctl/pfail8.ok
@@ -1,8 +1,10 @@
 stdin:1: af mismatch in routing spec
+stdin:1: route-to, reply-to and dup-to require keep state
 stdin:1: route-to, reply-to and dup-to are not supported on block rules
 stdin:1: skipping rule due to errors
 stdin:1: rule expands to no valid combination
 stdin:2: af mismatch in routing spec
+stdin:2: route-to, reply-to and dup-to require keep state
 stdin:2: route-to, reply-to and dup-to are not supported on block rules
 stdin:2: skipping rule due to errors
 stdin:2: rule expands to no valid combination