Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 13:23:27 -0500 From: "Hug Me" <hugme@hugme.org> To: "Bill Fenner" <fenner@research.att.com> Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org, Randall Stewart <rrs@cisco.com>, "Bruce M. Simpson" <bms@freebsd.org>, Ricardo Nabinger Sanchez <rnsanchez@wait4.org> Subject: Re: Problem with port 0 Message-ID: <f9876c510701171023m69dd1497q38b0a1f90eba6d68@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <200701162200.l0GM0FkG011595@bright.research.att.com> References: <f9876c510701120903r65543ef4nafc7eeead2becb42@mail.gmail.com> <20070112163057.2a3ec8f0.rnsanchez@wait4.org> <45A807F8.7080603@FreeBSD.org> <45ACCFF4.4040709@cisco.com> <200701162200.l0GM0FkG011595@bright.research.att.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Should I submit this to the bug reports? The problem is that we are
upgrading around 250 firewalls. the only systems we have connected L2 to the
firewalls are freebsd systems. without a patch we are going to have to fly
out to each firewall and do the upgrade. Each firewall being in a different
city you could imagine this is going to be a logistical nightmare.
One of the other problems we are going to face is the version of freebsd. we
have everything from 4.8 to 6.2 installed at the systems so even with a
patch we are going to have to figure out how to install it on each version.
On 1/16/07, Bill Fenner <fenner@research.att.com> wrote:
>
>
> I'd note that RFC 768 explicitly mentions this possibility:
>
> Source Port is an optional field, when meaningful, it indicates the port
> of the sending process, and may be assumed to be the port to which a
> reply should be addressed in the absence of any other information. If
> not used, a value of zero is inserted.
>
> I think Hug is saying that since the boot loader is the only thing that's
> running on the box, it's got no reason to use a port number, so it's
> not used.
>
> Hug's error message:
> >with default tftp - Jan 12 09:37:55 dukeengi01 tftpd[80898]: connect:
> Can't
> >assign requested address
>
> is consistent with the following code from in_pcbconnect_setup():
>
> if (sin->sin_port == 0)
> return (EADDRNOTAVAIL);
>
> which dates back to BSD 4.4 and before.
>
> This is probably not completely wrong, but it's not right in this
> particular
> case - tftpd should be able to connect a UDP socket to a remote port 0 in
> order to respond to this request.
>
> (FreeBSD definitely can't send from port 0, but that's OK because we don't
> want to.)
>
> Bill
>
--
*******************************************************************
Don't ever forget to
-*HUGME*-
Yield to Temptation ... it may not pass your way again.
-- Lazarus Long, "Time Enough for Love"
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?f9876c510701171023m69dd1497q38b0a1f90eba6d68>