From owner-freebsd-net Wed Mar 5 6:30: 4 2003 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 771F037B401; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 06:30:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from storm.FreeBSD.org.uk (storm.FreeBSD.org.uk [194.242.157.42]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CEA543FAF; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 06:30:02 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from mark@grondar.org) Received: from storm.FreeBSD.org.uk (Ugrondar@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by storm.FreeBSD.org.uk (8.12.7/8.12.7) with ESMTP id h25EU1dE012845; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:30:01 GMT (envelope-from mark@grondar.org) Received: (from Ugrondar@localhost) by storm.FreeBSD.org.uk (8.12.7/8.12.7/Submit) with UUCP id h25EU1Uq012844; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:30:01 GMT X-Authentication-Warning: storm.FreeBSD.org.uk: Ugrondar set sender to mark@grondar.org using -f Received: from grondar.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by grimreaper.grondar.org (8.12.7/8.12.7) with ESMTP id h25ETsIg047004; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:29:54 GMT (envelope-from mark@grondar.org) From: Mark Murray Message-Id: <200303051429.h25ETsIg047004@grimreaper.grondar.org> To: Terry Lambert Cc: freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Removal of netns - politically correct version In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 05 Mar 2003 04:32:23 PST." <3E65EE57.BBD230B4@mindspring.com> Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 14:29:54 +0000 Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Terry Lambert writes: > Let' start wth the libalias/natd incremental checksum update code; > the code is based on RFC1141, instead of RFC1624. As a result, > it get updated incorrectly occasionally, because it's using two's > complement instead of one's complement math. Per RFC1642: > > RFC 1141 yields an updated header checksum of -0 when it should be > +0. This is because it assumed that one's complement has a > distributive property, which does not hold when the result is 0 (see > derivation of [Eqn. 2]). > > People see this as hands on FTP installs, etc., going through > FreeBSD based NAT's. > > It's very obvious ad easy to repeat: > > 1) Put a printf in tcp_input.c that compalins when the > checksum is incorect. > > 2) Do a CVSup from that machine through a FreeBSD NAT > > > How long can this remain unfixed before the code is diked out, > and the checksum is recalculated fully, instead? Terry, you sound rather foolish when you argue like this. This is semantic tomfoolery and off topic. End of thread. M -- Mark Murray iumop ap!sdn w,I idlaH To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message