On Mon, Nov 14, 2022 at 8:52 PM Roy Marples <r...@marples.name> wrote: > > On 14/11/2022 11:04, Martin Husemann wrote: > > This clearly is a layering/abstraction violation and would have been > > good to discuss upfront. > > > > Where do you make use of that information? What about other packet injection > > paths? > > The next commit uses it in if_arp to ensure that the DaD probe sending > interface > hardware address matches the sending hardware address in the ARP packet as > specified in RFC 5227 section 1.1 > > I couldn't think of a better way of achieving this.
RFC 5227 says senders must follow the spec but doesn't say receivers' check is must IIUC. I don't think it is a good idea to increase the mbuf size just for broken clients. I think it is better to make the strict check optional (by sysctl or something) and use mtag, so the change doesn't impact on most of us. ozaki-r
