Hello,

looks good to me.

OK sashan@

On Wed, Feb 18, 2026 at 10:44:46PM +0100, Alexander Bluhm wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Kernel pf rule may have both nat-to and rdr-to fields.  pfctl prints
> only one of them.  By removing one else, user see what the kernel
> does.
> 
> pass in on em1 inet all flags S/SA nat-to 5.6.7.8 rdr-to 1.2.3.4
> 
> ok?
> 
> bluhm
> 
> Index: pfctl_parser.c
> ===================================================================
> RCS file: /data/mirror/openbsd/cvs/src/sbin/pfctl/pfctl_parser.c,v
> diff -u -p -r1.357 pfctl_parser.c
> --- pfctl_parser.c	3 Feb 2026 10:25:28 -0000	1.357
> +++ pfctl_parser.c	18 Feb 2026 21:32:24 -0000
> @@ -1200,15 +1200,18 @@ print_rule(struct pfctl *pf, struct pf_r
>  			    r->rdr.proxy_port[1], r->naf ? r->naf : r->af,
>  			    PF_POOL_RDR, verbose);
>  		}
> -	} else if (!anchor_call[0] && r->nat.addr.type != PF_ADDR_NONE) {
> -		printf (" nat-to ");
> -		print_pool(&r->nat, r->nat.proxy_port[0],
> -		    r->nat.proxy_port[1], r->naf ? r->naf : r->af,
> -		    PF_POOL_NAT, verbose);
> -	} else if (!anchor_call[0] && r->rdr.addr.type != PF_ADDR_NONE) {
> -		printf (" rdr-to ");
> -		print_pool(&r->rdr, r->rdr.proxy_port[0],
> -		    r->rdr.proxy_port[1], r->af, PF_POOL_RDR, verbose);
> +	} else {
> +		if (!anchor_call[0] && r->nat.addr.type != PF_ADDR_NONE) {
> +			printf (" nat-to ");
                        ^^^^^^^^^^
    would it make sense to drop the extra space, while are you here?
> +			print_pool(&r->nat, r->nat.proxy_port[0],
> +			    r->nat.proxy_port[1], r->naf ? r->naf : r->af,
> +			    PF_POOL_NAT, verbose);
> +		}
> +		if (!anchor_call[0] && r->rdr.addr.type != PF_ADDR_NONE) {
> +			printf (" rdr-to ");
                        ^^^^^^^^^^
    and here too. thanks.

> +			print_pool(&r->rdr, r->rdr.proxy_port[0],
> +			    r->rdr.proxy_port[1], r->af, PF_POOL_RDR, verbose);
> +		}
>  	}
>  	if (r->rt) {
>  		if (r->rt == PF_ROUTETO)
>