From owner-freebsd-ipfw Sun Jul 1 7:25: 5 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org Received: from info.iet.unipi.it (info.iet.unipi.it [131.114.9.184]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9079E37B405 for ; Sun, 1 Jul 2001 07:25:02 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from luigi@info.iet.unipi.it) Received: (from luigi@localhost) by info.iet.unipi.it (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA30334; Sun, 1 Jul 2001 16:19:50 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from luigi) From: Luigi Rizzo Message-Id: <200107011419.QAA30334@info.iet.unipi.it> Subject: Re: BRIDGE in ip_fw.c In-Reply-To: <20010630232954.J348@blossom.cjclark.org> from "Crist J. Clark" at "Jun 30, 2001 11:29:54 pm" To: cjclark@alum.mit.edu Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2001 16:19:50 +0200 (CEST) Cc: freebsd-ipfw@FreeBSD.ORG X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL61 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-ipfw@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > The reason I ask is that I need the flag bits of ip->ip_off. The test > to see if a packet is a fragment is, > > (ip->ip_off & (IP_OFFMASK | IP_MF)) > > And not just if the offset is non-zero. Obviously, whether ip->ip_off > is in host or network order will make a difference on how to do the same order for bridged and "regular" packets. I suppose it is host order from the previous snippet of code cheers luigi To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ipfw" in the body of the message