On Tuesday 16 October 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Hi, > > Sorry if I have missed something blindingly obvious, but I can't see > how the send_pkt() routine in ip_fw2.c would create a valid ipv6 source > and destination address. This is relevent due to its use in > ipfw_tick(). Basically in an ipv6 configuration when ipfw_tick() goes > off to send a keep-alive, I think send_pkt() would produce an erroneous > IPV4 style packet due to its use of id->dst_ip and id->src_ip rather > than dst_ip6 and src_ip6 ? Further, ipfw_tick() then calls > ip_output() rather than any ip6_output() routine. > > I am just checking before I make any modifications that I am not > missing something fundamental that invalidates my analysis.
I don't think you are missing something. IPv6 support in ipfw is still a second class citizen (as is stateful filtering). I remember seeing a mail with similar topic just recently, but can't recall on which list or from whom. I don't see a PR for this - could you please create one so it's not forgotten about? -- /"\ Best regards, | [EMAIL PROTECTED] \ / Max Laier | ICQ #67774661 X http://pf4freebsd.love2party.net/ | [EMAIL PROTECTED] / \ ASCII Ribbon Campaign | Against HTML Mail and News
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
