From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Mar 17 19:45:03 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 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 0AD3C16A400 for ; Sat, 17 Mar 2007 19:45:03 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bms@incunabulum.net) Received: from out5.smtp.messagingengine.com (out5.smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.29]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D878813C45A for ; Sat, 17 Mar 2007 19:45:02 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bms@incunabulum.net) Received: from out1.internal (unknown [10.202.2.149]) by out1.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9AEB81F88B4 for ; Sat, 17 Mar 2007 15:45:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from heartbeat2.messagingengine.com ([10.202.2.161]) by out1.internal (MEProxy); Sat, 17 Mar 2007 15:45:01 -0400 X-Sasl-enc: N9ArDqMdlCfidby6RcSqszvdWgkLPSsnBovVVvqSeSIL 1174160702 Received: from [192.168.123.18] (82-35-112-254.cable.ubr07.dals.blueyonder.co.uk [82.35.112.254]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B88E2109F9 for ; Sat, 17 Mar 2007 15:45:02 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <45FC453D.9070504@incunabulum.net> Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2007 19:45:01 +0000 From: Bruce M Simpson User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.9 (X11/20070125) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: net@FreeBSD.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Subject: MFCing rev 1.96 of netinet/in.c for Zeroconf 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: Sat, 17 Mar 2007 19:45:03 -0000 The change itself is very simple; http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/src/sys/netinet/in.c.diff?r1=1.95&r2=1.96 This change is necessary before IPv4 address scope and source selection policy may be implemented. Does anyone see any potential problems with this? It is possible that there are people out there forwarding between LANs with 169.254.0.0/16 subnetted on different interfaces, though this is not RFC compliant behaviour, so I'd like to hear about that before I merge it. Regards, BMS