Feature Request : Firewall Rules

[bigops]

As the 26.7 version has started to take the definitive steps to decommission the old firewall rules I finally decided to migrate most firewalls into the new rule-set.  The migration went ahead without much issues but after the migration found that some connections which had been working for years started failing.  Investigating further it appears that the migration assistant doe not really care of the processing order of the rules when migrating. 

To capture all blocks for further troubleshooting the approach adopted earlier was to have an explicit block at the end of each interface firewall rule.  During troubleshooting it was observed that the migration assistant had put some rules of the interface after a block all rule on the interface.  This resulted in the catch all block rule denying access.  So had to manually move rules around so that rules for each interface are grouped together rather than in mix.

While troubleshooting I also felt that if we have a column which shows the rule number which lists the processing order it would be helpful especially when all the rules are now bunched together.

[nero355]

While troubleshooting I also felt that if we have a column which shows the rule number which lists the processing order it would be helpful especially when all the rules are now bunched together.

I am pretty sure you can Enable that Column within the new Firewall Rules and also Disable exisiting ones : Click around a bit! ;)

[pfry]

Not what you're asking for, but I always verify my rules in "Firewall: Diagnostics: Statistics" -> "rules".

[bigops]

While troubleshooting I also felt that if we have a column which shows the rule number which lists the processing order it would be helpful especially when all the rules are now bunched together.

I am pretty sure you can Enable that Column within the new Firewall Rules and also Disable exisiting ones : Click around a bit! ;)

Not sure where you found that option.  The only columns that I found was ID and sort order and sequence.  Both are not really helpful.  Is there something that I am missing? 

A serial number of firewall rules would go a long way to quickly identify the position of the rule on the firewall table