There was a bug.
It was in software you got for free. It is hopefully fixed, before
the next bug is found and fixed. In the meantime, further
advancements will improve that software so that it continues to do
neat innovative things.
and takes down an entire network with ridiculous
I was able to lab it up and confirm and recreate the bug. I realize
that this subject has been beaten to death now but I wanted to chime
in saying:
* Yes, it's definitely fixed in -current. This isn't new information
but good info for my organization.
* There's a simple way to reliable reproduce
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 05:22:16PM -0500, Mark Felder wrote:
I have great respect for you, Theo, the OpenBSD project, and all of
the contributers. The responses to this situation from Claude have
instilled great confidence in the use of this software. I just want
to point out that the FAQ
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 09:43:42AM +0200, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 05:22:16PM -0500, Mark Felder wrote:
I have great respect for you, Theo, the OpenBSD project, and all of
the contributers. The responses to this situation from Claude have
instilled great confidence in
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 05:22:16PM -0500, Mark Felder wrote:
Honestly, the thought that this can easily affect other people with
lots of network statements in OSPF is pretty scary, and the thought
of running -current is equally scary.
You do not need to run current.
If a problem is found,
On 2011-05-24, Chris Wopat m...@falz.net wrote:
On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 3:11 PM, Claudio Jeker cje...@diehard.n-r-g.com
wrote:
Are you running 4.9 or -current? Up until the code generating the LSA
update packets (and sending them) did not change between 4.8 and 4.9.
In -current this code
Stuart Henderson wrote:
If this is related to sending huge LS updates, I don't think many
people currently running ospfd would hit it (you'd need to be announcing
quite a lot of networks into ospf), so you probably wouldn't have read
about it on the lists.
I was able to do some sniffing and
You have a confirmed issue now, so -current isn't likely to make things
worse. (With daemons like this I'm usually happier running -current in
production than older code).
This seems to imply that -current typically consists of bugfixes vs
new features/enhancements?
all bugfixes go in
On Wed, 25 May 2011 14:26:08 -0500, Amit Kulkarni amitk...@gmail.com
wrote:
all bugfixes go in current and only serious bugfixes or outright
security breaches are backported to the current release and current
release-1 branches, this is in the FAQ
Is there a reason why an OSPF update
On Wed, 25 May 2011 14:26:08 -0500, Amit Kulkarni amitk...@gmail.com
wrote:
all bugfixes go in current and only serious bugfixes or outright
security breaches are backported to the current release and current
release-1 branches, this is in the FAQ
Is there a reason why an OSPF update
Theo, come on man... I really don't understand the hostility here. My goal
here is not to get people worked up. I understand you get harassed a lot
and people constantly beg for this and that, but I just wanted
clarification as I have seen no strict guidelines on what actually becomes
Theo, come on man... I really don't understand the hostility here. My goal
here is not to get people worked up. I understand you get harassed a lot
and people constantly beg for this and that, but I just wanted
clarification as I have seen no strict guidelines on what actually becomes
Honestly, the thought that this can easily affect other people with lots of
network statements in OSPF is pretty scary, and the thought of running
-current is equally scary. Most admins prefer not to live out on the edge
and I understand the project's strict guidelines should ensure safe and
On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 09:59:53AM -0500, Chris Wopat wrote:
Had a strange issue overnight. In short I had two OpenBSD boxes acting
as routers denial of service my network with OSPFv3 multicast packets.
The setup is as follows:
Two OpenBSD 4.9 amd64 boxes running ospfd and ospf6d. Each box
I have to agree with Theo and I was honestly shocked at your initial email.
You don't bite the hand that is trying to help nor do you bite the hand that
is giving you something for free.
Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2011 3:22 PM
Subject: Re: ospfd/ospf6d causing denial of service(?)
Theo, come
You have a confirmed issue now, so -current isn't likely to make things
worse. (With daemons like this I'm usually happier running -current in
production than older code).
This seems to imply that -current typically consists of bugfixes vs
new features/enhancements?
-current is what the
On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 9:59 AM, Chris Wopat m...@falz.net wrote:
Had a strange issue overnight. In short I had two OpenBSD boxes acting
as routers denial of service my network with OSPFv3 multicast packets.
This happened again today. This time it was on a third OpenBSD box.
The last time it
On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 01:12:10PM -0500, Chris Wopat wrote:
On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 9:59 AM, Chris Wopat m...@falz.net wrote:
Had a strange issue overnight. In short I had two OpenBSD boxes acting
as routers denial of service my network with OSPFv3 multicast packets.
This happened again
On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 3:11 PM, Claudio Jeker cje...@diehard.n-r-g.com wrote:
Are you running 4.9 or -current? Up until the code generating the LSA
update packets (and sending them) did not change between 4.8 and 4.9.
In -current this code got rewritten to fix a issue. IIRC the problem was
Claudio,
It was not possible to send out LS updates larger then the MTU.
Change the code in such a way that single huge LSA get fragmented
but avoid IP fragmentation when packing multiple ones.
Problem found and fix tested by Benjamin Papillon.
If I understand this correctly, there was an
Had a strange issue overnight. In short I had two OpenBSD boxes acting
as routers denial of service my network with OSPFv3 multicast packets.
The setup is as follows:
Two OpenBSD 4.9 amd64 boxes running ospfd and ospf6d. Each box has two
NICs, each of which is on a separate subnet. Both of these
On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 9:59 AM, Chris Wopat m...@falz.net wrote:
Had a strange issue overnight. In short I had two OpenBSD boxes acting
as routers denial of service my network with OSPFv3 multicast packets.
Also I've attached some logs below. They continue on like this until I
unplugged the
22 matches
Mail list logo
