From owner-freebsd-ipfw@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Aug 8 09:04:11 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7843216A417 for ; Wed, 8 Aug 2007 09:04:11 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from pekkas@netcore.fi) Received: from netcore.fi (eunet-gw.ipv6.netcore.fi [IPv6:2001:670:86:3001::1]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E86913C45E for ; Wed, 8 Aug 2007 09:04:10 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from pekkas@netcore.fi) Received: from netcore.fi (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by netcore.fi (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id l78947Rv032516; Wed, 8 Aug 2007 12:04:07 +0300 Received: from localhost (pekkas@localhost) by netcore.fi (8.13.8/8.13.8/Submit) with ESMTP id l789477V032513; Wed, 8 Aug 2007 12:04:07 +0300 Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2007 12:04:07 +0300 (EEST) From: Pekka Savola To: "Andrey V. Elsukov" In-Reply-To: <46B97769.4010203@yandex.ru> Message-ID: References: <46B97769.4010203@yandex.ru> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.90.3/3891/Wed Aug 8 03:11:58 2007 on otso.netcore.fi X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.5 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED, AWL, BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.1.9 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.9 (2007-02-13) on otso.netcore.fi Cc: freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ip6fw byte reporting error in v6 X-BeenThere: freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IPFW Technical Discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 09:04:11 -0000 On Wed, 8 Aug 2007, Andrey V. Elsukov wrote: > Pekka Savola wrote: >> Fiddling around with ipfw, I noticed that 'ip6fw -ta l', under byte >> reports, does not include the base IPv6 header in the length calculation >> (hmm.. I wonder how it would calculate the length of extension-header >> chained packet). >> >> IPv4 byte statistics, on the other hand, include the IPv4 header bytes. >> >> Is this a known problem? Is it a more general BSD kernel problem? > > Probably, you should use ipfw(8) instead of ip6fw(8). ip6fw was removed and > it's functional moved into ipfw(8). FWIW -- a rule generated by ipfw(8) counts the length correctly. -- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings