>>Then, I assume, it would be appropriate to tell this
>>in the man pages or at least somewhere (else than only in
>>PR database) that people don't wonder why there is the
>>-6 switch that _seems_ to work but the rules that are
>>given in ipf6.conf are not applied! Dangerous..
>	sorry for the mess.  we should have been shipping ipv4-only ipf(8), and 
>	should have warnings in ipf(8) - there was a warning in current tree,
>	which failed to get pulled up (i forgot to submit it).

	FYI: I've sent a pullup-request to 1.5 release engineers for
	some document updates.  not sure if it makes it to 1.5.1 (right now
	we are in the very last stage of releng work).

itojun