Hi,
Looks like:
https://svnweb.freebsd.org/base?view=revision=191942
I am wondering if it should also be removed from icmp6_notify_error?
##
/*
* XXX: currently
This seems like a bug:
https://svnweb.freebsd.org/base/head/sys/netinet/tcp_subr.c?r1=303457=303456=303457
I believe the ordering of if/else checks for cmd value is important as the
last one checks for mapping of PRC* to an error.
Given that the mapping is defined to be 0 for redirects (only
the comment in the code suggests what RFC says but the check is more
liberal. Also why it is different for DAD NS vs Neighbor resolution NS.
On Friday, October 17, 2014, Hiroki Sato h...@freebsd.org wrote:
prabhakar lakhera prabhakar.lakh...@gmail.com javascript:; wrote
in CALg+rhVZFc=ve+nzs-hsm
This probably is more of a compliance issue (or may be not as the NS
receipt section of RFC 4861 http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4861#page-62 does
not talk about it).
The neighbor solicitation message format says this:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4861#page-22
Destination Address
Hi,
I see that* ND6_LLINFO_WAITDELETE *was done away with long time back.
I was looking for any historical reasons for why it was needed and what
triggered its removal.
Any pointers will be much appreciated.
Thanks!
___
freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing
...@isc.orgwrote:
At Thu, 10 Jan 2013 15:50:30 -0800,
prabhakar lakhera prabhakar.lakh...@gmail.com wrote:
I see that* ND6_LLINFO_WAITDELETE *was done away with long time back.
I was looking for any historical reasons for why it was needed and what
triggered its removal.
I'd normally change
Hi,
It could very well be that my brain wires are not working late in the day.
From what I know most of the routing table entries (unless referenced by
some other entity or another route in routing table) have reference count
0. At least that's how things used to be in BSD as also stated in TCP
I see that it changed from 7 to 8. However doesn't specify why. Have some
semantics changed?
On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 5:59 PM, prabhakar lakhera
prabhakar.lakh...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
It could very well be that my brain wires are not working late in the day.
From what I know most
Hi,
I have a question regarding route addition and deletion from these
functions for IPv6.
Why do we need it? Shouldn't the address configuration take care of
installing subnet routes and deletion should take care of their
deletion.
best,
Prabhakar
Hi,
Is there any way for the administrator to set an interface's scope if for
link local scope?
I see that in6_domifattach calls scope6_ifattach which sets the interface
local scope and link local scope for the interface equal to the ifp index.
scope6_ifattach(struct ifnet *ifp)
{
.
Removing the hyperlinks (these seem to get appended by gmail:
Hi,
Is there any way for the administrator to set an interface's scope if
for link local scope?
I see that in6_domifattach calls scope6_ifattach which sets the
interface local scope and link local scope for the interface equal to
the
Hi,
The rtredirect code has the following code lines:
*/* verify the gateway is directly reachable */*
521 http://fxr.watson.org/fxr/source/net/route.c?v=FREEBSD9#L521
if ((ifa = ifa_ifwithnet
http://fxr.watson.org/fxr/ident?v=FREEBSD9;im=excerpts;i=ifa_ifwithnet(gateway
Hi,
In RFC 4861 Section: 8.1. Validation of Redirect
Messageshttp://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4861#page-74we have the
following bullets:
A host *MUST *silently discard any received Redirect message that does
not satisfy all of the following validity checks:
- IP Source Address is a link-local
comment inline:
On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 6:33 AM, satish amara satishkam...@gmail.comwrote:
I gave reference to old man page because it talks about scope which is
related to link local address of IPV6.
I don't see the latest man page talks about link-local address of IPV6. So
I am looking for
: *
*NS in/out=%d/%d, NA in=%d\n,*
*if_name(ifa-ifa_ifp), ip6_sprintf(ip6buf,
ia-ia_addr.sin6_addr),*
*dp-dad_ns_icount, dp-dad_ns_ocount, dp-dad_na_icount);*
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 5:51 PM, prabhakar lakhera
prabhakar.lakh...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I
Hi,
I was puzzled to look at DAD detection code in FreeBSD. We check for
counters for any received NA/NS for DAD in nd6_dad_timer:
if (dp-dad_na_icount) {
1326 /*
1327 * the check is in nd6_dad_na_input(),
1328 * but
Hi,
The RFC 4861 (ND) states the following for the icmpv6 redirect:
Source Address
MUST be the link-local address assigned to the
interface from which this message is sent.
This combined with the following in icmp6_redirect_input ensures that
if a static default route was
Hi,
In FreeBSD icmp6 code I see function where we are either going to
freeit where passed mbuf is freed or we are simply returning.
For example:
icmp6_input calls icmp6_redirect_input and right after it returns it
makes m=NULL. Inside icmp6_redirect_input there are checks for ifp and
for the
18 matches
Mail list logo
