On Sun, Dec 22, 2019 at 10:06:40PM +0100, Remi Locherer wrote:
> this is similar to ospfd's hello.c rev 1.23.
>
> OK?
>
> Remi
>
>
> Index: hello.c
> ===================================================================
> RCS file: /cvs/src/usr.sbin/ospf6d/hello.c,v
> retrieving revision 1.19
> diff -u -p -r1.19 hello.c
> --- hello.c 11 Dec 2019 21:33:56 -0000 1.19
> +++ hello.c 22 Dec 2019 20:46:01 -0000
> @@ -173,10 +173,16 @@ recv_hello(struct iface *iface, struct i
> nbr->dr.s_addr = hello.d_rtr;
> nbr->bdr.s_addr = hello.bd_rtr;
> nbr->priority = LSA_24_GETHI(ntohl(hello.opts));
> + /* XXX neighbor address shouldn't be stored on virtual links */
> + nbr->addr = *src;
> + }
> +
> + if (memcmp(&nbr->addr, src, sizeof(struct in6_addr)) != 0) {
Can you use IN6_ARE_ADDR_EQUAL() macro instead of memcmp() to be consistent with
other address comparison ?
Otherwise OK denis@
> + log_warnx("%s: neighbor ID %s changed its address to %s",
> + __func__, inet_ntoa(nbr->id), log_in6addr(src));
> + nbr->addr = *src;
> }
>
> - /* actually the neighbor address shouldn't be stored on virtual links */
> - nbr->addr = *src;
> nbr->options = opts;
>
> nbr_fsm(nbr, NBR_EVT_HELLO_RCVD);
>
