From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Apr 12 17:14:18 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D55A116A407 for ; Thu, 12 Apr 2007 17:14:18 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jinmei@isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp) Received: from shuttle.wide.toshiba.co.jp (shuttle.wide.toshiba.co.jp [202.249.10.124]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F3F313C4B7 for ; Thu, 12 Apr 2007 17:14:18 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jinmei@isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp) Received: from jmb.local (t050096.ppp.asahi-net.or.jp [203.189.50.96]) by shuttle.wide.toshiba.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E2D47301E; Fri, 13 Apr 2007 02:14:17 +0900 (JST) Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 02:14:03 +0900 Message-ID: From: JINMEI Tatuya / =?ISO-2022-JP?B?GyRCP0BMQEMjOkgbKEI=?= To: Andrew McDonald In-Reply-To: <20070405152547.GC6798@mcdonald.org.uk> References: <20070404211815.GA6798@mcdonald.org.uk> <20070405081639.GB6798@mcdonald.org.uk> <20070405152547.GC6798@mcdonald.org.uk> User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.14.0 (Africa) Emacs/22.0 Mule/5.0 (SAKAKI) MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.6 - "Maruoka") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: IPv6 Router Alert breaks forwarding X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 17:14:18 -0000 At Thu, 5 Apr 2007 16:25:47 +0100, Andrew McDonald wrote: > > The behavior looks reasonable, but I'd code it more explicitly with > > some comments so that the intent is clear and others can correctly > > modify it for future extensions. A possible patch to implement it is > > pasted below. One thing I'm not really sure is whether someone is > > using (or has used) other predefined alert values: > > > > 1 Datagram contains RSVP message. > > 2 Datagram contains an Active Networks message. > > > > (I guess you're now going to use values 3-35 per RFC3175). > > > > If there is a user, we need to be careful not to break compatibility. > > That patch looks good to me. > > I think RSVP is the only other potential current user (and most likely > without RFC3175 support). There appears to be some basic support for > IPv6 in the ISI RSVPd implementation (untouched since 1999), but from a > quick look at the code it is not clear whether they actually use the > IPv6 router alert anyway. It predates RFC3175. If you want to be very > conservative in changing behaviour you might want to include RSVP, but > it seems unlikely that anyone is using it. > > The only reference I know of for the Active Networks use is a published > paper (and the reference in RFC2711). I don't know of any running code. Okay, if no one else objects to it, I'll commit the change. Thanks, JINMEI, Tatuya Communication Platform Lab. Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp. jinmei@isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp