Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2014 14:31:01 +0100 From: Kristof Provost <kristof@sigsegv.be> To: Ilya Bakulin <ilya@bakulin.de> Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org, Mark Felder <feld@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Checksumming outgoing packets in PF vs in ip[6]_output Message-ID: <20141107133101.GF2044@vega.codepro.be> In-Reply-To: <9355b23f1a07008eca61f16ebd828d0b@mail.bakulin.de> References: <d2f0c43909d9c9bada9a5bda7719cfca@mail.bakulin.de> <1415210423.3394438.187470637.21CD8D3D@webmail.messagingengine.com> <9355b23f1a07008eca61f16ebd828d0b@mail.bakulin.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2014-11-05 19:11:55 (+0100), Ilya Bakulin <ilya@bakulin.de> wrote: > On 2014-11-05 19:00, Mark Felder wrote: > > Now if we could only stamp out the bug with ipv6 fragment and pf I'd be > > a happy, happy daemon. :-) > > This is somewhat more complex problem, I'll take a look as the time > allows. > I've been playing with it too. I have a patch which seems to be working, but it currently drops the distinction between PFRULE_FRAGCROP and PFRULE_FRAGDROP. OpenBSD dropped that a while ago, but I figured FreeBSD wouldn't want user-visible changes. I've been meaning to look at that some more but ... ENOTIME. It's tentatively planned as a project for Chaos Congress (end of December), but no promises. If you like I can probably dig up the (non-clean) patches for you. Regards, Kristof
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20141107133101.GF2044>