Gateway Patchpack #1

-[util.inc] is_linklocal($ipaddr) is now fully LL aware for both ipv4 and ipv6;
-[util.inc] Added is_valid_iface_ipaddrv4($ipaddr) and is_valid_iface_ipaddrv6($ipaddr) to check if given $ipaddr can be actually used on interface;
-[filter.inc] filter_generate_user_rule($rule). Add missing gettext;
-[gwlb.inc] Don't create dynamic gateways for ifaces without IP address;
-[gwlb.inc] Don't monitor dynamic gateway with an invalid IP address by default;
You're right about usability of .0/.255 but what about routing issues? Personally, I've never used/saw a .0/.255 in real networks. Before implementing I've done some research and found out that some customers with .0/.255 were not be reachable from WAN in some cases and other "issues". Issues were not because IP address was a network identifier/broadcast address but only .0/.255 itself. So, I've decided to implement "safe" method.

For example, my implementation allows to use .32 or .39 if you have a 192.168.0.32/29 network; 

That's perfectly correlates with your message and smaller subnets. If you meant something like 182.11.0.0/31 I wonder if ISP could give you one.

Also, pfSense box could not be a border gateway. What if border gateway (for example, ISA/TMG) will not be able to route or .0/.255 will be blocked by security policy?