From owner-freebsd-net Sun Dec 26 6:39:46 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix, from userid 758) id A74B014D3D; Sun, 26 Dec 1999 06:39:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 899F01CD80D; Sun, 26 Dec 1999 06:39:44 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from kris@hub.freebsd.org) Date: Sun, 26 Dec 1999 06:39:44 -0800 (PST) From: Kris Kennaway To: Kurakin Roman Cc: Andreas Klemm , freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Where to get last NETGRAPH In-Reply-To: <385E64AE.484EA1DF@cronyx.ru> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Mon, 20 Dec 1999, Kurakin Roman wrote: > I thought that sources in release. I also expect that there is a place where I > can get last NG archive. I working with netgraph sources and it easy for me when > all text > together. Just pull them out of the CVS repository - more efficient than downloading the entire kernel sources. Kris To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-net Mon Dec 27 11: 6:38 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mail.snickers.org (snickers.org [216.126.90.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 021B8152E6 for ; Mon, 27 Dec 1999 11:06:32 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from josh@snickers.org) Received: by mail.snickers.org (Postfix, from userid 1037) id 1B6C83D19; Mon, 27 Dec 1999 13:41:09 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 27 Dec 1999 13:41:08 -0500 From: Josh Tiefenbach To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: PPP/NAT question Message-ID: <19991227134108.E59180@snickers.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0pre2i Organization: Hah Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Quickie question: I'm starting to see this in /var/log/ppp.log: Dec 27 13:04:54 cerebus ppp[3001]: Warning: nat_LayerPull: Problem with IP header length (2048) Ever since I upp'd to the latest -current. Any cause for concern? Modulo this, everything is working peachy-keen ppp invoked as: ppp -nat -ddial with config: default: set device PPPoE:de0 set authname XXXX set authkey YYYY set cd 5 set timeout 120 nat enable yes nat same_ports yes nat use_sockets yes set ifaddr 10.0.0.1/0 10.0.0.2/0 255.255.255.0 0.0.0.0 add default HISADDR josh -- I wanted a mission. And for my sins, they gave me one. -- Capt. Willard To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-net Mon Dec 27 21:58:26 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from super-g.com (super-g.com [207.240.140.161]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C15B153D7 for ; Mon, 27 Dec 1999 21:58:23 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from spork@super-g.com) Received: by super-g.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id E5445CF3F; Tue, 28 Dec 1999 00:58:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by super-g.com (Postfix) with SMTP id D30CECF3E; Tue, 28 Dec 1999 00:58:21 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 28 Dec 1999 00:58:21 -0500 (EST) From: spork X-Sender: spork@super-g.inch.com To: Stan Brown Cc: freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Road Runer cable modem network, and FreeBSD In-Reply-To: <199911182210.OAA08900@netcom.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Catching up on long-neglected mailboxes... In case you didn't find it, check out: http://people.qualcomm.com/karn/rr/rr.html http://www.lodestone.org/rr/rrd/index.html The second seems FBSD-centric... Good luck, Charles On Thu, 18 Nov 1999, Stan Brown wrote: > I am using a FreeBSD machine for my gateway to my cablemodem provider. > Works really great, and I am as pleased as punch with it. Thanks for > all the good work. > > Now a friend of mine has a cablemodem, and I want toset up a machine > for him. However he is on the Road Runer netowk (Time Warner?). It is > my understanding that the following are true of the: > > 1. They _require_ DHCP. > 2. They require some sort of "login" after establishing the network > layer connection. > > Bith of these are different from my cablemodem provider, and since he > is in a different cty, having the mahcine set up as closely as possibe > to a working system would be benefical. > > So, can anyone point me to a source of information on using FreeBSD for > this? > > Can anyone confir that they have this working? > > Thanks. > > -- > Stan Brown stanb@netcom.com 404-996-6955 > Factory Automation Systems > Atlanta Ga. > -- > Look, look, see Windows 95. Buy, lemmings, buy! > Pay no attention to that cliff ahead... Henry Spencer > (c) 1998 Stan Brown. Redistribution via the Microsoft Network is prohibited. > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-net Mon Dec 27 22:54:35 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from jason.argos.org (a1-3b058.neo.rr.com [24.93.181.58]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B76C8151C7 for ; Mon, 27 Dec 1999 22:54:17 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from mike@argos.org) Received: from localhost (mike@localhost) by jason.argos.org (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id BAA19733; Tue, 28 Dec 1999 01:53:41 -0500 Date: Tue, 28 Dec 1999 01:53:41 -0500 (EST) From: Mike Nowlin To: Stan Brown Cc: freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Road Runer cable modem network, and FreeBSD In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org > > > > 1. They _require_ DHCP. > > 2. They require some sort of "login" after establishing the network > > layer connection. In the Akron, OH area, this is true... Depending on what RR area you're in, they use different equipment and have different requirements. In Akron, they (finally) dropped the login program requirement, and strictly use DHCP for everything - no big problem on FBSD. If you're on the same type of net as I am/was, I have a login program that works for this area -- same setup as Hawaii and a few other Road Runner areas -- you're welcome to a copy of it. mike To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-net Tue Dec 28 12:16:53 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx0-smtp.goodnet.com (sloth.goodnet.com [207.98.129.103]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B40A9154E8 for ; Tue, 28 Dec 1999 12:16:43 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from orville@weyrich.com) Received: from dopey.weyrich.com ([209.54.252.93]) by mx0-smtp.goodnet.com with ESMTP id NAA06886 for ; Tue, 28 Dec 1999 13:16:30 -0700 (MST) Received: (from orville@localhost) by dopey.weyrich.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) id NAA05089; Tue, 28 Dec 1999 13:27:13 -0700 Date: Tue, 28 Dec 1999 13:27:12 -0700 (MST) From: "Orville R. Weyrich.Jr" To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Major trouble NFS mounting from Linux Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org I have tried every trick I can find in the FAQ and man pages, and cannot get my FreeBSD system (named BASHFUL below) to mount NFS file systems from my Linux Slackware 4.0 (kernel 2.2.6) (named SLEAZY below). I can mount from SLEAZY to another Linux box (kernel 1.2.8) (named DOPEY below) just fine. SLEAZY is a 400 MHz AMD K6 with 3c509 ethernet adaptor. BASHFUL is a 450 MHz Pentium III with 3c905 ethernet adaptor. DOPEY is a 486DX2/66 with 3c509 ethernet adaptor. I can telnet from any of the boxes to another. On SLEAZY I have run the daemons /usr/sbin/rpc.nfsd -n -p /usr/sbin/rpc.mountd -n -p to allow non-priveleged ports and promiscuous behavior. On SLEAZY I have exports set up: /net/sleazy_a dopey(rw,no_root_squash) bashful(insecure,rw,no_root_squash) On SLEAZY I have /etc/hosts.allow: rpc.mountd : ###.###.### rpc.nfsd : ###.###.### where ### is the class-C IP address of my network. On Sleazy I have /etc/hosts.deny: rpc.mountd : ALL rpc.nfsd : ALL on BASHFUL I execute the command (as root) mount -t nfs -o -P,-w=1024,-r=1024 sleazy:/net/sleazy_a /net/sleazy_a and I get the following response on BASHFUL console: nfs: bad MNT RPC: RPC: Timed out with the following entry in SLEAZY /var/adm/syslog: Dec 28 13:04:50 sleazy mountd[291]: access from host BASHFUL rejected Any suggestions? Help greatly appreciated. orville. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Orville R. Weyrich, Jr. Weyrich Computer Consulting mailto:orville@weyrich.com KD7HJV http://www.weyrich.com ------------------------------------------------------------------- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-net Tue Dec 28 17:51:23 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from tango.SoftHome.net (tango.SoftHome.net [204.144.231.49]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 2A1EF15127 for ; Tue, 28 Dec 1999 17:51:21 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from fgont@softhome.net) Received: (qmail 3654 invoked by uid 417); 29 Dec 1999 01:57:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO over) (200.51.58.184) by smtpb.softhome.net with SMTP; 29 Dec 1999 01:57:49 -0000 Message-Id: <.19991228225250.00968e20@pop.softhome.net> X-Sender: fgont@pop.softhome.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.0.58 Date: Tue, 28 Dec 1999 22:55:19 -0300 To: freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG From: Fernando Ariel Gont Subject: "Identification field" at the IP header Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Hi! I've read that in some implementations, the "Identification field" at the IP header is incremented by the TCP layer, and NOT by the IP layer. I've read that the "idea" of the TCP/IP protocol suit is to have several layers, which are "independent" of each other. That means, the application (FTP, for example) passes its data to the next layer (TCP), then TCP encapsulates it, adding its header, then TCP passes its data to the IP layer, which encapsulates its.... and so on... But, keeping in mind what I mentioned above, it seems to me that that "type of implementation" goes against the former idea of the TCP/IP protocol suite. I mean, I'd found it more logical if the "Identification field" was incremented by the IP layer, and NOT by the TCP layer Am I wrong? Best regards, Fernando Ariel Gont E-mail: fgont@softhome.net web site: http://members.xoom.com/gont/ --- "Con las computadoras crearemos una civilizacion de estupidos tecnologicos, y una elite se ira quedando con todo. Cuando digo elite me refiero a gente como yo, que puede leer." - Ray Bradbury, escritor To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-net Tue Dec 28 17:51:40 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from tango.SoftHome.net (tango.SoftHome.net [204.144.231.49]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 9187914C3C for ; Tue, 28 Dec 1999 17:51:38 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from fgont@softhome.net) Received: (qmail 3850 invoked by uid 417); 29 Dec 1999 01:58:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO over) (200.51.58.184) by smtpb.softhome.net with SMTP; 29 Dec 1999 01:58:09 -0000 Message-Id: <.19991228225523.00b30b90@pop.softhome.net> X-Sender: fgont@pop.softhome.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.0.58 Date: Tue, 28 Dec 1999 22:56:55 -0300 To: freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG From: Fernando Ariel Gont Subject: Two many CRCs? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Hi! I'm reading Stevens' "TCP/IP Illustrated", and have the following doubt: I don't quite understand why you have a CRC field at PPP (or at Ethernet), then one CRC field at IP and then one CRC field at the TCP layer. Why is there one CRC field in each layer, and not only one at, say, TCP? Best regards, Fernando Ariel Gont E-mail: fgont@softhome.net web site: http://members.xoom.com/gont/ --- "Con las computadoras crearemos una civilizacion de estupidos tecnologicos, y una elite se ira quedando con todo. Cuando digo elite me refiero a gente como yo, que puede leer." - Ray Bradbury, escritor To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-net Tue Dec 28 18: 4:41 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mail-out2.apple.com (mail-out2.apple.com [17.254.0.51]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0037915039 for ; Tue, 28 Dec 1999 18:04:37 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from justin@walker3.apple.com) Received: from mailgate2.apple.com ([17.129.100.225]) by mail-out2.apple.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA27181 for ; Tue, 28 Dec 1999 18:04:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from scv3.apple.com (scv3.apple.com) by mailgate2.apple.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 2.0.15) with ESMTP id ; Tue, 28 Dec 1999 18:04:24 -0800 Received: from walker3.apple.com (walkeridsl1.apple.com [17.219.158.66]) by scv3.apple.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA04739; Tue, 28 Dec 1999 18:04:23 -0800 (PST) Received: by walker3.apple.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) id SAA01331; Tue, 28 Dec 1999 18:04:28 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199912290204.SAA01331@walker3.apple.com> To: Fernando Ariel Gont Subject: Re: "Identification field" at the IP header Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Date: Tue, 28 Dec 1999 18:04:27 -0800 From: "Justin C. Walker" Reply-To: justin@apple.com X-Mailer: by Apple MailViewer (2.105.dev) Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org > From: Fernando Ariel Gont > Date: 1999-12-28 17:51:28 -0800 > To: freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG > Subject: "Identification field" at the IP header > Delivered-to: freebsd-net@freebsd.org > X-Sender: fgont@pop.softhome.net > X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.0.58 > X-Loop: FreeBSD.org > > Hi! > > I've read that in some implementations, the "Identification field" at the IP > header is incremented by the TCP layer, and NOT by the IP layer. > I've read that the "idea" of the TCP/IP protocol suit is to have several layers, > which are "independent" of each other. That means, the application (FTP, for > example) passes its data to the next layer (TCP), then TCP encapsulates it, > adding its header, then TCP passes its data to the IP layer, which encapsulates > its.... and so on... > But, keeping in mind what I mentioned above, it seems to me that that "type of > implementation" goes against the former idea of the TCP/IP protocol suite. > I mean, I'd found it more logical if the "Identification field" was incremented > by the IP layer, and NOT by the TCP layer > Am I wrong? I'm not sure where you read this, or what implementations do it. I'm not aware of any. Normally, the 'id' is assigned by the IP layer. This value is used to permit receiving IP stacks to distinguish between copies of a datagram that have been floating around in the ether and different versions of the "same datagram" (as sent), e.g., for retransmission. It's also used to keep book on fragments as they arive at the ultimate destination. The "identification" is supposed to be unique to a given datagram. Having it assigned by another agent than the IP layer makes this either difficult or an excercise in semantics (e.g., the TCP could specify it, using a value provided by the IP layer). Regards, Justin -- Justin C. Walker, Curmudgeon-At-Large * Institute for General Semantics | Manager, CoreOS Networking | Men are from Earth. Apple Computer, Inc. | Women are from Earth. 2 Infinite Loop | Deal with it. Cupertino, CA 95014 | *-------------------------------------*-------------------------------* To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-net Tue Dec 28 18: 9: 7 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from svn.com.br (sv1.svn.com.br [200.223.74.33]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FDC414DED; Tue, 28 Dec 1999 18:08:50 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from boozy@rabelo.eti.br) Received: from robusto (sp235.svn.com.br [200.223.82.25]) by svn.com.br (8.9.3/8.9.2) with SMTP id AAA00249; Wed, 29 Dec 1999 00:08:46 -0200 Message-Id: X-Sender: boozy%rabelo.eti.br@mickey.atarde.com.br (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Demo Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1999 00:01:30 -0200 To: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org, freebsd-net@FreeBSD.org From: Boozy Subject: -current and IPv6 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Hi Lists, How are the implementation of IPv6 in FreeBSD 4.0? Is it available? Is it stable? What is better: use FreeBSD 3.4 with Kame or FreeBSD 4.0? Thanks, Luciano Rabelo To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-net Tue Dec 28 18:13:20 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mail-out2.apple.com (mail-out2.apple.com [17.254.0.51]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D66914A1A for ; Tue, 28 Dec 1999 18:13:17 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from justin@walker3.apple.com) Received: from scv2.apple.com (A17-129-100-139.apple.com [17.129.100.139]) by mail-out2.apple.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA28154; Tue, 28 Dec 1999 18:13:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from walker3.apple.com (walkeridsl1.apple.com [17.219.158.66]) by scv2.apple.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA24087; Tue, 28 Dec 1999 18:13:12 -0800 (PST) Received: by walker3.apple.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) id SAA01337; Tue, 28 Dec 1999 18:13:17 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199912290213.SAA01337@walker3.apple.com> To: Fernando Ariel Gont Subject: Re: Two many CRCs? Cc: freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Date: Tue, 28 Dec 1999 18:13:16 -0800 From: "Justin C. Walker" Reply-To: justin@apple.com X-Mailer: by Apple MailViewer (2.105.dev) Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org > From: Fernando Ariel Gont > Date: 1999-12-28 17:52:00 -0800 > To: freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG > Subject: Two many CRCs? > Delivered-to: freebsd-net@freebsd.org > X-Sender: fgont@pop.softhome.net > X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.0.58 > X-Loop: FreeBSD.org > > Hi! > > I'm reading Stevens' "TCP/IP Illustrated", and have the following doubt: > I don't quite understand why you have a CRC field at PPP (or at Ethernet), then one > CRC field at IP and then one CRC field at the TCP layer. > Why is there one CRC field in each layer, and not only one at, say, TCP? The question is somewhat complex, and depends partially on history. First, the FCS/CRC fields for media (e.g., ethernet, PPP) are used to permit the media handlers to reject bad packets quickly. Second, when IP was initially developed, there was a higher likelihood that a packet could get munged as went from the receiver to the host. Third, there's still a chance (cosmic rays, you know) that a packet really might get munged after it is in host memory, but before the stack layers have their look at it. This is possible, and has been observed. It gets less likely over time. Forth, the protocol CRCs cover different portions of the packet. For IP, it's *just* the IP header; for TCP, it's just the TCP "packet" (plus the "pseudo header"). So what's really duplicated is the CRC at the media layer and those at the protocol layers. Finally, there is no header checksum for IPv6; reliance is placed on media and whatever the higher layers of protocol want to do. Regards, Justin -- Justin C. Walker, Curmudgeon-At-Large * Institute for General Semantics | Manager, CoreOS Networking | When crypto is outlawed, Apple Computer, Inc. | Only outlaws will have crypto. 2 Infinite Loop | Cupertino, CA 95014 | *-------------------------------------*-------------------------------* To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-net Tue Dec 28 23:56:49 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from fgwmail5.fujitsu.co.jp (fgwmail5.fujitsu.co.jp [192.51.44.35]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D9A3151CC; Tue, 28 Dec 1999 23:56:44 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from shin@nd.net.fujitsu.co.jp) Received: from m5.gw.fujitsu.co.jp by fgwmail5.fujitsu.co.jp (8.9.3/3.7W-MX9912-Fujitsu Gateway) id QAA10835; Wed, 29 Dec 1999 16:56:13 +0900 (JST) (envelope-from shin@nd.net.fujitsu.co.jp) Received: from incapgw.fujitsu.co.jp by m5.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (8.9.3/3.7W-9912-Fujitsu Domain Master) id QAA09640; Wed, 29 Dec 1999 16:56:12 +0900 (JST) Received: from localhost ([192.168.245.125]) by incapgw.fujitsu.co.jp (8.9.3/3.7W-9912) id QAA11390; Wed, 29 Dec 1999 16:56:10 +0900 (JST) To: boozy@rabelo.eti.br Cc: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: -current and IPv6 In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: Mew version 1.94 on Emacs 20.4 / Mule 4.0 (HANANOEN) X-Prom-Mew: Prom-Mew 1.93.4 (procmail reader for Mew) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <19991229165641J.shin@nd.net.fujitsu.co.jp> Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1999 16:56:41 +0900 From: Yoshinobu Inoue X-Dispatcher: imput version 990905(IM130) Lines: 46 Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org > Hi Lists, > > How are the implementation of IPv6 in FreeBSD 4.0? Is it available? Is it > stable? The work on the current is still going on. Followings are already committed, and seems to be working well. -most of IPv6 extensions in kernel(tcp for IPv6 and IPv6 multicasting not yet) -IPsec in kernel -libc update -basic tools(ifconfig, route, netstat) -several udp and raw apps for IPv6 Now following patch is under review on freebsd-arch and cvs-committers. -tcp for IPv6 And following patch will be made for review soon. -libipsec and several ipsec related apps Then followings will be prepared. -IPv6 multicasting for kernel and apps -tcp apps for IPv6 -ppp for IPv6 -several library updates for IPv6 -many ports for IPv6 > What is better: use FreeBSD 3.4 with Kame or FreeBSD 4.0? Enough functionality is available now only on FreeBSD 3.4 with Kame. And other differencies are, - on-going merging on FreeBSD4.0 is based on KAME 19991101 SNAP, and some add on bug fixes. So FreeBSD 3.4 with Kame has newer changes based on KAME environment. (also might have newer bugs ;-) - I found some FreeBSD 3.x with Kame bugs on merging work, and fixed them on the current. Significant ones are committed to KAME repository soon, but small things might be delayed, because now I am more concentrated on 4.0 merging work. Yoshinobu Inoue > Luciano Rabelo To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-net Wed Dec 29 1:26:40 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from verdi.nethelp.no (verdi.nethelp.no [158.36.41.162]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 0ECCE15134 for ; Wed, 29 Dec 1999 01:26:34 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from sthaug@nethelp.no) Received: (qmail 79058 invoked by uid 1001); 29 Dec 1999 09:26:31 +0000 (GMT) To: justin@apple.com Cc: fgont@softhome.net, freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Two many CRCs? From: sthaug@nethelp.no In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 28 Dec 1999 18:13:16 -0800" References: <199912290213.SAA01337@walker3.apple.com> X-Mailer: Mew version 1.05+ on Emacs 19.34.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1999 10:26:31 +0100 Message-ID: <79056.946459591@verdi.nethelp.no> Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org > So what's really duplicated is the CRC at the media layer and those > at the protocol layers. You can often argue that this isn't duplication - the link layer CRC only covers one hop, while the TCP checksum is end to end. Of course, if you have for instance ATM AAL5, you also have an end to end checksum there. However, there's been research (Craig Partridge & al) which suggests that the AAL5 CRC and the TCP checksum catch *different* classes of errors, and that it's really useful to have both. Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug@nethelp.no To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-net Wed Dec 29 23:54:47 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from inetfw.sonycsl.co.jp (inetfw.SonyCSL.Co.Jp [203.137.129.4]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B48D1511A for ; Wed, 29 Dec 1999 23:54:44 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from kjc@csl.sony.co.jp) Received: from hotaka.csl.sony.co.jp (root@hotaka.csl.sony.co.jp [43.27.98.57]) by inetfw.sonycsl.co.jp (8.9.3+3.2W/3.7Ws3/99071615/smtpfeed 1.01) with ESMTP id QAA54522; Thu, 30 Dec 1999 16:54:42 +0900 (JST) Received: from localhost (kjc@[127.0.0.1]) by hotaka.csl.sony.co.jp (8.8.8/3.7Ws3/hotaka/99101212) with ESMTP id QAA04210; Thu, 30 Dec 1999 16:54:41 +0900 (JST) To: altq@csl.sony.co.jp Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org, tech-net@netbsd.org, tech@openbsd.org Subject: altq-2.1 now available X-Mailer: Mew version 1.95b3 on Emacs 20.5 / Mule 4.0 (HANANOEN) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <19991230165441M.kjc@csl.sony.co.jp> Date: Thu, 30 Dec 1999 16:54:41 +0900 From: Kenjiro Cho X-Dispatcher: imput version 991025(IM133) Lines: 56 Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org A new release of ALTQ is available from http://www.csl.sony.co.jp/~kjc/software.html or ftp://ftp.csl.sony.co.jp/pub/kjc/altq-2.1.tar.gz -Kenjiro from README ALTQ -- Version 2.1 December 29, 1999 This is a release of Alternate Queueing for BSD UNIX. ALTQ provides queueing schemes required to realize resource-sharing and quality of service. The ALTQ release is intended to be a flexible platform to promote network research and gain field experience. What's New since version 2.0: - altqstat: discipline independent stat program - improved link-sharing performance for ethernet - rsvp support using CBQ and HFSC - FreeBSD-3.4R based. 2.2.8R and 3.3R are also supported. - initial support of OpenBSD-2.6 (in addition to NetBSD-1.4.1) only i386 architecture is supported IMPORTANT CHANGES since 2.0: directory reorganization: as we now have multiple platforms and the number of disciplines is increasing, it is time to reorganize the directory configuration. 1. a new kernel directory, "sys-altq/altq", is created. altq kernel files previously placed under "net" and "netinet" are moved into "sys-altq/altq". ***THIS CHANGE AFFECTS ALL 3RD PARTY SOURCE CODE*** please update #include path! (e.g., #include --> #include ) 2. a device file directory, "/dev/altq", is create. altq device files previously placed under "/dev" are moved into "/dev/altq". (e.g., /dev/cbq --> /dev/altq/cbq) ***DON'T FORGET TO RUN MAKEDEV.altq*** 3. discipline specific programs are no longer required. they are placed under "legacy-tools" directory. because of the above changes, sources (and binaries) for altq-2.0 are NOT COMPATIBLE with altq-2.1. The following items are still missing in 2.1. - more drivers for NetBSD - cpu architecture other than i386 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-net Thu Dec 30 3: 2:49 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from tango.SoftHome.net (tango.SoftHome.net [204.144.231.49]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 58DBD14E7C for ; Thu, 30 Dec 1999 03:02:46 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from fgont@softhome.net) Received: (qmail 24025 invoked by uid 417); 30 Dec 1999 11:02:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO over) (200.51.58.193) by smtpb.softhome.net with SMTP; 30 Dec 1999 11:02:41 -0000 Message-Id: <.19991229205625.009e34d0@pop.softhome.net> X-Sender: fgont@pop.softhome.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.0.58 Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1999 21:11:54 -0300 To: justin@apple.com From: Fernando Ariel Gont Subject: Re: "Identification field" at the IP header Cc: freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: <199912290204.SAA01331@walker3.apple.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org At 18:04 28/12/1999 -0800, Justin C. Walker wrote: >I'm not sure where you read this, or what implementations do it. I read that from Richard Stevens' "TCP/IP Illustrated, Volume I" (Addison-Wesley), on page 36. It says: ".... RFC 791 says that the identification field should be chosen by the upper layer that is having IP send the datagram. This implies that two consecutive IP datagrams, one generated by TCP and one generated by UDP, can have the same identification field. While this is OK (the reassembly algorithm handles this), most Berkeley-derived implementations have the IP layer increment a kernel variable each time an IP datagram is sent, regardless of which layer passed the data to IP to send. This kernel variable is initialized to a value based on the time-of-day when the system is bootstraped" >The "identification" is supposed to be unique to a given datagram. >Having it assigned by another agent than the IP layer makes this >either difficult or an excercise in semantics (e.g., the TCP could >specify it, using a value provided by the IP layer). What I understand from Stevens' words is that the Identification is chosen by the upper layer (say TCP or UDP)... :( I don't understand why it is possible that the Identification number is chosen by TCP or UDP, as if a packet is fragmented, neither TCP nor UDP are aware of it. Best regards, Fernando Ariel Gont E-mail: fgont@softhome.net web site: http://members.xoom.com/gont/ --- "Con las computadoras crearemos una civilizacion de estupidos tecnologicos, y una elite se ira quedando con todo. Cuando digo elite me refiero a gente como yo, que puede leer." - Ray Bradbury, escritor To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-net Thu Dec 30 3: 2:55 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from tango.SoftHome.net (tango.SoftHome.net [204.144.231.49]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 2A8CA152F1 for ; Thu, 30 Dec 1999 03:02:53 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from fgont@softhome.net) Received: (qmail 24143 invoked by uid 417); 30 Dec 1999 11:02:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO over) (200.51.58.193) by smtpb.softhome.net with SMTP; 30 Dec 1999 11:02:51 -0000 Message-Id: <.19991229211419.009c8b10@pop.softhome.net> X-Sender: fgont@pop.softhome.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.0.58 Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1999 21:22:40 -0300 To: justin@apple.com From: Fernando Ariel Gont Subject: Re: Two many CRCs? Cc: freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: <199912290213.SAA01337@walker3.apple.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org At 18:13 28/12/1999 -0800, Justin C. Walker wrote: >Third, there's still a chance (cosmic rays, you know) that a packet >really might get munged after it is in host memory, but before the >stack layers have their look at it. This is possible, and has been >observed. It gets less likely over time. Ok, but... Was that taken as a *reason* for adding a CRC field? I mean, I can't understand that a CRC field was added because someone thought that the packets could get damaged in memory... If so, what about the OS code that is in memory???? >Forth, the protocol CRCs cover different portions of the packet. >For IP, it's *just* the IP header; for TCP, it's just the TCP >"packet" (plus the "pseudo header"). Ok, but.... why isn't there only one CRC field at the IP layer that covers the *whole* IP datagram? If it were like this, I think a CRC field at TCP or UDP would not be necessary... Best regards, Fernando Ariel Gont E-mail: fgont@softhome.net web site: http://members.xoom.com/gont/ --- "Con las computadoras crearemos una civilizacion de estupidos tecnologicos, y una elite se ira quedando con todo. Cuando digo elite me refiero a gente como yo, que puede leer." - Ray Bradbury, escritor To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-net Thu Dec 30 3: 3:10 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from tango.SoftHome.net (tango.SoftHome.net [204.144.231.49]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id D7B781523A for ; Thu, 30 Dec 1999 03:03:07 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from fgont@softhome.net) Received: (qmail 24317 invoked by uid 417); 30 Dec 1999 11:03:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO over) (200.51.58.193) by smtpb.softhome.net with SMTP; 30 Dec 1999 11:03:06 -0000 Message-Id: <.19991229214306.00b874c0@pop.softhome.net> X-Sender: fgont@pop.softhome.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.0.58 Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1999 21:50:58 -0300 To: freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG From: Fernando Ariel Gont Subject: ARP makes a LAN "vulnerable"? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Hi! I read that ARP is used to "translate" an IP address to the hardware address of the host (that means, given an IP number of a host, ARP can give me the hardware address of that host). I've also read that you can configure your machine to reply the ARP requests for a given IP number. If so, I could configure my host (in a LAN) to reply to all the ARP requests with the hardware address of MY HOST, instead of the hardware address of the real host. If that is possible, all the LAN information could pass through my machine, and THEN to the real receiver. I think someone could use this "procedure" to steal information. Am I wrong? Regards, Fernando Ariel Gont E-mail: fgont@softhome.net web site: http://members.xoom.com/gont/ --- "Con las computadoras crearemos una civilizacion de estupidos tecnologicos, y una elite se ira quedando con todo. Cuando digo elite me refiero a gente como yo, que puede leer." - Ray Bradbury, escritor To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-net Thu Dec 30 4:16: 5 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from d12lmsgate-3.de.ibm.com (d12lmsgate-3.de.ibm.com [195.212.91.201]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14D9815252 for ; Thu, 30 Dec 1999 04:15:57 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from DRHAGER@de.ibm.com) Received: from d12relay01.de.ibm.com (d12relay01.de.ibm.com [9.165.215.22]) by d12lmsgate-3.de.ibm.com (1.0.0) with ESMTP id NAA105090; Thu, 30 Dec 1999 13:15:48 +0100 From: DRHAGER@de.ibm.com Received: from d12mta01.de.ibm.com (d12mta01_cs0 [9.165.222.237]) by d12relay01.de.ibm.com (8.8.8m2/NCO v2.06) with SMTP id NAA13550; Thu, 30 Dec 1999 13:15:43 +0100 Received: by d12mta01.de.ibm.com(Lotus SMTP MTA v4.6.5 (863.2 5-20-1999)) id C1256857.004355DF ; Thu, 30 Dec 1999 13:15:28 +0100 X-Lotus-FromDomain: IBMDE To: Fernando Ariel Gont Cc: freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Message-ID: Date: Thu, 30 Dec 1999 13:15:18 +0100 Subject: Re: ARP makes a LAN "vulnerable"? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org So what? You can always see all the traffic on your segment. Try tcpdump, snoop, iptrace..... If you have two identical adresses on the MAC -Layer, you will run in a real problem, so such a thing will be noticed on the net. Try it on a segment you control, its fun and quite a good execise in network-troubleshooting. Orm To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-net Thu Dec 30 10:44:24 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mail-out1.apple.com (mail-out1.apple.com [17.254.0.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3DB915200 for ; Thu, 30 Dec 1999 10:44:20 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from justin@rhapture.apple.com) Received: from scv2.apple.com (A17-129-100-139.apple.com [17.129.100.139]) by mail-out1.apple.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA07323; Thu, 30 Dec 1999 10:44:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from rhapture.apple.com (rhapture.apple.com [17.202.40.59]) by scv2.apple.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA07995; Thu, 30 Dec 1999 10:44:18 -0800 (PST) Received: by rhapture.apple.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) id KAA00666; Thu, 30 Dec 1999 10:44:18 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199912301844.KAA00666@rhapture.apple.com> To: Fernando Ariel Gont Subject: Re: "Identification field" at the IP header Cc: freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: <199912290204.SAA01331@walker3.apple.com> Date: Thu, 30 Dec 1999 10:44:16 -0800 From: "Justin C. Walker" Reply-To: justin@apple.com X-Mailer: by Apple MailViewer (2.105.dev) Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org > From: Fernando Ariel Gont > Date: 1999-12-30 03:02:49 -0800 > To: justin@apple.com > Subject: Re: "Identification field" at the IP header > Cc: freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG > In-reply-to: <199912290204.SAA01331@walker3.apple.com> > X-Sender: fgont@pop.softhome.net > X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.0.58 > > At 18:04 28/12/1999 -0800, Justin C. Walker wrote: > > > >I'm not sure where you read this, or what implementations do it. > > I read that from Richard Stevens' "TCP/IP Illustrated, Volume I" > (Addison-Wesley), on page 36. > It says: > ".... RFC 791 says that the identification field should be chosen by the upper > layer that is having IP send the datagram. This implies that two consecutive IP > datagrams, one generated by TCP and one generated by UDP, can have the same > identification field. While this is OK (the reassembly algorithm handles > this), most Berkeley-derived implementations have the IP layer increment a > kernel variable each time an IP datagram is sent, regardless of which layer > passed the data to IP to send. This kernel variable is initialized to a value based > on the time-of-day when the system is bootstraped" Gee. Another day, another change in what one "knows"... Actually, it (RFC 791) sez that "it is appropriate for *some* upper level protocols" to choose the ID (emphasis mine), and goes on to discuss why this might be so. In any case, I'm not aware of any that do. At the same time, keep in mind that reassembly typically relies on several pieces of info (RFC 791 again): addresses, ID, and protocol. Given that, IDs could certainly have different "name spaces", depending on transport protocols. > >The "identification" is supposed to be unique to a given datagram. > >Having it assigned by another agent than the IP layer makes this > >either difficult or an excercise in semantics (e.g., the TCP could > >specify it, using a value provided by the IP layer). > > What I understand from Stevens' words is that the Identification is chosen by the > upper layer (say TCP or UDP)... :( > > I don't understand why it is possible that the Identification number is chosen by > TCP or UDP, as if a packet is fragmented, neither TCP nor UDP are aware of it. I think you're confusing definition/specification and implementation. The RFC allows this, but it doesn't *require* it. In fact those I'm aware of don't do this, and instead have the IP layer assign the ID. The point to the assignment of an ID is to provide for fragmentation and reassembly. Generally, there's no guarantee (for IPv4) that the sending TCP will know it's happening in any case (even if the sending IP doesn't fragment, and intervening one might). Regards, Justin -- Justin C. Walker, Curmudgeon-At-Large * Institute for General Semantics | Manager, CoreOS Networking | Men are from Earth. Apple Computer, Inc. | Women are from Earth. 2 Infinite Loop | Deal with it. Cupertino, CA 95014 | *-------------------------------------*-------------------------------* To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-net Thu Dec 30 10:55:57 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mail-out2.apple.com (mail-out2.apple.com [17.254.0.51]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20DD71538D for ; Thu, 30 Dec 1999 10:55:54 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from justin@rhapture.apple.com) Received: from mailgate1.apple.com (A17-128-100-225.apple.com [17.128.100.225]) by mail-out2.apple.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA23999 for ; Thu, 30 Dec 1999 10:55:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from scv1.apple.com (scv1.apple.com) by mailgate1.apple.com (mailgate1.apple.com- SMTPRS 2.0.15) with ESMTP id for ; Thu, 30 Dec 1999 10:55:44 -0800 Received: from rhapture.apple.com (rhapture.apple.com [17.202.40.59]) by scv1.apple.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA05086 for ; Thu, 30 Dec 1999 10:55:44 -0800 (PST) Received: by rhapture.apple.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) id KAA00672 for freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG; Thu, 30 Dec 1999 10:55:44 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199912301855.KAA00672@rhapture.apple.com> To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Two many CRCs? In-Reply-To: <199912290213.SAA01337@walker3.apple.com> Date: Thu, 30 Dec 1999 10:55:43 -0800 From: "Justin C. Walker" Reply-To: justin@apple.com X-Mailer: by Apple MailViewer (2.105.dev) Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org > From: Fernando Ariel Gont > Date: 1999-12-30 03:02:54 -0800 > To: justin@apple.com > Subject: Re: Two many CRCs? > Cc: freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG > In-reply-to: <199912290213.SAA01337@walker3.apple.com> > X-Sender: fgont@pop.softhome.net > X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.0.58 > > At 18:13 28/12/1999 -0800, Justin C. Walker wrote: > > >Third, there's still a chance (cosmic rays, you know) that a packet > >really might get munged after it is in host memory, but before the > >stack layers have their look at it. This is possible, and has been > >observed. It gets less likely over time. > > Ok, but... Was that taken as a *reason* for adding a CRC field? > I mean, I can't understand that a CRC field was added because someone thought that > the packets could get damaged in memory... If so, what about the OS code that is in > memory???? This has to be viewed through a lens of history (or, in reality, "history as recalled by those with faulty recall" :-}). CRC's were put in the IP Family of Fine Protocols to provide some level of assurance that (end-to-end, as someone else pointed out) the chances of packet munging were minimized. CRCs were put in the various media that IP uses independently of IP (IP isn't the only thing using ethernet, and ethernet wasn't invented so that IP could work). The bit about cosmic rays is just an observation, and wasn't part of the reasoning at the time (far as I know). > >Forth, the protocol CRCs cover different portions of the packet. > >For IP, it's *just* the IP header; for TCP, it's just the TCP > >"packet" (plus the "pseudo header"). > > Ok, but.... why isn't there only one CRC field at the IP layer that covers the > *whole* IP datagram? > If it were like this, I think a CRC field at TCP or UDP would not be necessary... The point to the split of CRC coverage is that IP deals with forwarding packets through a mixed bag of network fabrics; the important point at that layer is to assure that the header is correct (else the routing scheme goes to hell). For transport layers, the protocol designer is free to require (or not) a CRC covering the transport bits. To sum this one up, I think the use of IP header checksums has been judged (based on IPv6) to be extraneous; those for transports (because of end-to-end issues) have not. Regards, Justin -- Justin C. Walker, Curmudgeon-At-Large * Institute for General Semantics | Manager, CoreOS Networking | When crypto is outlawed, Apple Computer, Inc. | Only outlaws will have crypto. 2 Infinite Loop | Cupertino, CA 95014 | *-------------------------------------*-------------------------------* To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-net Fri Dec 31 5:35:17 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from tango.SoftHome.net (tango.SoftHome.net [204.144.231.49]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id C864214C3D for ; Fri, 31 Dec 1999 05:35:14 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from fgont@softhome.net) Received: (qmail 8239 invoked by uid 417); 31 Dec 1999 13:35:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO over) (200.51.58.188) by smtpa.softhome.net with SMTP; 31 Dec 1999 13:35:21 -0000 Message-Id: <.19991231001314.009e7780@pop.softhome.net> X-Sender: fgont@pop.softhome.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.0.58 Date: Fri, 31 Dec 1999 00:19:14 -0300 To: DRHAGER@de.ibm.com From: Fernando Ariel Gont Subject: Re: ARP makes a LAN "vulnerable"? Cc: freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org At 13:15 30/12/1999 +0100, DRHAGER@de.ibm.com wrote: >So what? >You can always see all the traffic on your segment. >Try tcpdump, snoop, iptrace..... Sorry, I thought that there were some ways to don't let tcpdump see the packets.... :( >If you have two identical adresses on the MAC -Layer, you will run in a What's the MAC-layer???? >real problem, so such a thing will be noticed on the net. I didn't mean to have two machines with the same address. I meant that I could use ARP so that the IP address of a given host is translated to the hardware address of MY host. In that way, the packets that someone wants to send to the former host, would go to MY host, instead... Regards, Fernando Ariel Gont E-mail: fgont@softhome.net web site: http://members.xoom.com/gont/ --- "Con las computadoras crearemos una civilizacion de estupidos tecnologicos, y una elite se ira quedando con todo. Cuando digo elite me refiero a gente como yo, que puede leer." - Ray Bradbury, escritor To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-net Fri Dec 31 11:11:53 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from benge.graphics.cornell.edu (benge.graphics.cornell.edu [128.84.247.43]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1E8C14F05 for ; Fri, 31 Dec 1999 11:11:50 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from mkc@benge.graphics.cornell.edu) Received: from benge.graphics.cornell.edu (mkc@localhost) by benge.graphics.cornell.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA04394; Fri, 31 Dec 1999 14:11:43 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from mkc@benge.graphics.cornell.edu) Message-Id: <199912311911.OAA04394@benge.graphics.cornell.edu> To: Fernando Ariel Gont Cc: DRHAGER@de.ibm.com, freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: ARP makes a LAN "vulnerable"? In-Reply-To: Message from Fernando Ariel Gont of "Fri, 31 Dec 1999 00:19:14 -0300." <.19991231001314.009e7780@pop.softhome.net> Date: Fri, 31 Dec 1999 14:11:43 -0500 From: Mitch Collinsworth Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org >I didn't mean to have two machines with the same address. I meant that I could > use ARP so that the IP address of a given host is translated to the hardware >address of MY host. In that way, the packets that someone wants to send to the > former host, would go to MY host, instead... Yes, but only for hosts on your local LAN, not beyond the closest router. And the other host will still be ARPing it's own address at the same time, so you will end up confusing the other system over which is the right MAC address for that IP. Then your local network administrator will come visit and cut your fingers off. -Mitch To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-net Fri Dec 31 23:29:30 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from d12lmsgate-3.de.ibm.com (d12lmsgate-3.de.ibm.com [195.212.91.201]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2564314CE9 for ; Fri, 31 Dec 1999 23:29:28 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from DRHAGER@de.ibm.com) Received: from d12relay01.de.ibm.com (d12relay01.de.ibm.com [9.165.215.22]) by d12lmsgate-3.de.ibm.com (1.0.0) with ESMTP id IAA24696; Sat, 1 Jan 2000 08:28:52 +0100 From: DRHAGER@de.ibm.com Received: from d12mta01.de.ibm.com (d12mta01_cs0 [9.165.222.237]) by d12relay01.de.ibm.com (8.8.8m2/NCO v2.06) with SMTP id IAA57972; Sat, 1 Jan 2000 08:28:51 +0100 Received: by d12mta01.de.ibm.com(Lotus SMTP MTA v4.6.5 (863.2 5-20-1999)) id C1256859.0029151B ; Sat, 1 Jan 2000 08:28:43 +0100 X-Lotus-FromDomain: IBMDE To: fgont@softhome.net Cc: freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG, mkc@Graphics.Cornell.EDU Message-ID: Date: Sat, 1 Jan 2000 08:28:42 +0100 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org If you are a cracker, you try to take down the other system someway. Duplicate MAC-adresses (the hardware adress of your device) or duplicate IP adresses are very hard to determine - ar least in my expirience. A big segment with PCs and a lot of curios and "skilled" users can be hell. And shooting them or cutting off fingers is considered as unprofessionel. :-< If someone is root on his system, how do you stop him from reading pakets? There is no way to tell a packet to avoid being read by tcpdump - or am I confused? You can scan and search cards in promicuos mode, but this leads back to shooting and cutting fingers. Or you can buy cards which dont provide this feature - this exists for token ring. Happy new year / prosperos ano nuevo Orm To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message