From owner-freebsd-current  Fri Dec  5 02:38:32 1997
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id CAA12284
          for current-outgoing; Fri, 5 Dec 1997 02:38:32 -0800 (PST)
          (envelope-from owner-freebsd-current)
Received: from kn6-045.ktvlpr.inet.fi (ari@kn6-045.ktvlpr.inet.fi [194.197.169.45])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id CAA12279
          for <current@FreeBSD.ORG>; Fri, 5 Dec 1997 02:38:29 -0800 (PST)
          (envelope-from ari@kn6-045.ktvlpr.inet.fi)
Received: from localhost (ari@localhost)
	by kn6-045.ktvlpr.inet.fi (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA01867;
	Fri, 5 Dec 1997 12:37:54 +0200 (EET)
Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 12:37:53 +0200 (EET)
From: Ari Suutari <ari@suutari.iki.fi>
To: Eivind Eklund <perhaps@yes.no>
cc: Ari Suutari <ari@suutari.iki.fi>, John Kelly <jak@cetlink.net>,
        current@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: 3.0 -release ?
In-Reply-To: <86k9dkegbr.fsf@bitbox.follo.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.96.971205123045.1812A-100000@kn6-045.ktvlpr.inet.fi>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

On 5 Dec 1997, Eivind Eklund wrote:

> Ari Suutari <ari@suutari.iki.fi> writes:
> > On Wed, 3 Dec 1997, Eivind Eklund wrote:
> > > 
> > > Problem both places, methinks.  See if the following fixes it (from
> > > aage@aage.priv.no):
> > > 
> > > --- /tmp/natd.c Tue Dec  2 22:24:53 1997
> > > +++ /usr/src/usr.sbin/natd/natd.c       Wed Oct 29 22:11:32 1997
> > > @@ -1332,7 +1332,7 @@
> > >  
> > >         port = strtol (str, &end, 10);
> > >         if (end != str)
> > > -               return htonl (port);
> > > +               return htons (port);
> > >  
> > >         sp = getservbyname (str, proto);
> > >         if (!sp)
> > > 
> > > If it does, I'll commit it - it looks correct, and I've got one other
> > > favourable report :-)
> > > 
> > 
> > 	Hi,
> > 
> > 	After making this change, it no longer worked 
> > 	on 2.2, I guess that it won't work on 3.0 either
> > 	(I didn't have time to check it any futher, I just
> > 	tried it).
> 
> Weird.  I've had reports from two users (one that is using natd and
> had problems, and Aage Roebekk that actually fixed it) that this
> solves a genuine problem.  
> 
> Using htonl() on a port number at least seems to be wrong - port
> numbers are 16 bits.  Signed/unsigned trouble too, perhaps?
> 
> Eivind.
> 

	htons works, htonl doesn't. Maybe I didn't read the patch 
	very carefully - my current sources (natd 1.10) used
	htons and I tried htonl which did not work. 

	Apparently, the version present in -current is not the 
	the same as my 1.10. There seem to be a lot of small
	changes made by someone.

	Ari <ari@suutari.iki.fi>
	Lappeenranta, Finland