Date: Tue, 03 Jan 2012 20:36:08 +0100 (CET) From: sthaug@nethelp.no To: hrs@FreeBSD.org Cc: ndenev@gmail.com, dougb@FreeBSD.org, emaste@FreeBSD.org, borjam@sarenet.es, freebsd-net@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: openbgpds not talking each other since 8.2-STABLE upgrade Message-ID: <20120103.203608.74677765.sthaug@nethelp.no> In-Reply-To: <20120104.040611.1847309275485655567.hrs@allbsd.org> References: <6FE9FF15-487F-4A31-AEE0-A0AD92F5DC72@sarenet.es> <20DC0C8A-DD9E-408E-9ACA-82532DB31871@lists.zabbadoz.net> <20120104.040611.1847309275485655567.hrs@allbsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Doug, does your kernel have TCP_SIGNATURE option? The patch[*] for > net/openbgpd can be used as a workaround if it was due to TCP_MD5SIG > option on the listening sockets. > > [*] http://people.allbsd.org/~hrs/FreeBSD/openbgpd.20120104-1.diff > > While this is an ugly hack and I will investigate more reasonable > solution for that, I want to narrow down the cause first. Can anyone > who are using a 8-STABLE kenrel with TCP_SIGNATURE let me know if > this works or not? 8-STABLE on several servers, csup'ed only a couple of days ago, with options TCP_SIGNATURE options IPSEC device crypto device cryptodev and Quagga bgpd talking to Juniper M/MX routers using MD5 key on the BGP sessions. No problems. Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug@nethelp.no
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20120103.203608.74677765.sthaug>