Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Fri, 9 Aug 2002 10:16:49 -0700 (PDT)
From:      Archie Cobbs <archie@dellroad.org>
To:        Ruslan Ermilov <ru@FreeBSD.org>
Cc:        cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org
Subject:   Re: cvs commit: src/sys/netinet in_rmx.c ip_input.c ip_var.h
Message-ID:  <200208091716.g79HGno08306@arch20m.dellroad.org>
In-Reply-To: <20020809145837.GD38763@sunbay.com> "from Ruslan Ermilov at Aug 9, 2002 05:58:37 pm"

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Ruslan Ermilov writes:
> >   Modified files:        (Branch: RELENG_4)
> >     sys/netinet          in_rmx.c ip_input.c ip_var.h 
> >   Log:
> >   MFC: in_rmx.c,v 1.39, ip_input.c,v 1.165, and ip_var.h,v 1.54:
> >   
> >   Invalidate cached forwarding route (ipforward_rt) whenever a new
> >   route is added to the routing table, otherwise we may end up using
> >   the wrong route when forwarding.
> >   
> >   PR:             kern/10778
> >   Spotted by:     Sergey Starosek <star@sunbay.com>,
> >                   Andrew Rukavishnikov <rav@sunbay.com>
>
> I thought I merged this years ago; today we have spent two hours
> figuring out why the server running mpd(8)'s PPTP with manually
> added host routes was not (randomly) forwarding IP datagrams to
> the remote end of the PPTP connection.  It was a BIG surprise
> when I figured out I did not MFC this fix.

Welcome to the club of people who have been stumped for hours by this bug :-)
I'm glad we're finally rid of it (after 3 years).

> BTW, Archie, kudos for making mpd(8) work in a scenario documented
> in the BUGS section of libalias(3).  How this is done?

The PPTP spec assumes that only one control connection (i.e., TCP port
1723) will exist between any two IP addresses.

Originally, mpd was written to honor that. However, unless you are
identifying the peer by its IP address, there's no real need to disallow
multiple connections from the same IP address. So mpd was changed
to allow multiple connections when possible. Although this violates
the spec, it's a beneficial change. Consider it a bug in the spec :-)

FYI, you may notice that L2TP, which came after PPTP, doesn't make
this useless assumption. Any number of L2TP control connections may
exist between two peers.

Cheers,
-Archie

__________________________________________________________________________
Archie Cobbs     *     Packet Design     *     http://www.packetdesign.com

To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200208091716.g79HGno08306>