From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Dec 23 20:13:28 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F004C106564A for ; Tue, 23 Dec 2008 20:13:28 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dougb@FreeBSD.org) Received: from mail2.fluidhosting.com (mx22.fluidhosting.com [204.14.89.5]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 709698FC12 for ; Tue, 23 Dec 2008 20:13:28 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dougb@FreeBSD.org) Received: (qmail 5862 invoked by uid 399); 23 Dec 2008 19:46:46 -0000 Received: from localhost (HELO lap.dougb.net) (dougb@dougbarton.us@127.0.0.1) by localhost with ESMTPAM; 23 Dec 2008 19:46:46 -0000 X-Originating-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-Sender: dougb@dougbarton.us Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2008 11:46:44 -0800 (PST) From: Doug Barton To: Alfred Perlstein In-Reply-To: <20081223001216.GH18389@elvis.mu.org> Message-ID: References: <20081223001216.GH18389@elvis.mu.org> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (BSF 1167 2008-08-23) X-message-flag: Outlook -- Not just for spreading viruses anymore! X-OpenPGP-Key-ID: 0xD5B2F0FB Organization: http://www.FreeBSD.org/ MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Cc: net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ipv6 bugfix, need review. 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: Tue, 23 Dec 2008 20:13:29 -0000 On Mon, 22 Dec 2008, Alfred Perlstein wrote: > Hey guys, we found a bug at Juniper and it resolves an issue > for us. I've been asked to forward this to FreeBSD, I honestly > am not that clear on the issue so I'm hoping someone can step > up to review this. > > Synopsis is: > > The traffic class byte is set to 0x00000000 in the header of some > BGP packets sent between interfaces that have IPv6 addresses, > instead of the correct setting 0xc0 (INTERNETCONTROL). > > Fix is small and attached. One thing I am wondering, do we > need to check "if (inp)" ? I don't think so. How about adding an assert to the patch to prove this theory? :) I'll test it on my home box (which has IPv6) as soon as I'm done with the stuff I'm working on atm. hth, Doug -- This .signature sanitized for your protection