From owner-freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jan 18 11:10:28 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-bugs@hub.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5668416A4D0 for ; Tue, 18 Jan 2005 11:10:28 +0000 (GMT) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [216.136.204.21]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A2EE43D45 for ; Tue, 18 Jan 2005 11:10:28 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (gnats@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id j0IBAS99090437 for ; Tue, 18 Jan 2005 11:10:28 GMT (envelope-from gnats@freefall.freebsd.org) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) id j0IBASOL090436; Tue, 18 Jan 2005 11:10:28 GMT (envelope-from gnats) Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 11:10:28 GMT Message-Id: <200501181110.j0IBASOL090436@freefall.freebsd.org> To: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org From: Gleb Smirnoff Subject: Re: kern/75121: Wrong behaviour of IFF_LINK2 bit in 6in6 gifs? X-BeenThere: freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: Gleb Smirnoff List-Id: Bug reports List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 11:10:28 -0000 The following reply was made to PR kern/75121; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Gleb Smirnoff To: Antonio Tapiador del Dujo Cc: FreeBSD-gnats-submit@freebsd.org Subject: Re: kern/75121: Wrong behaviour of IFF_LINK2 bit in 6in6 gifs? Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 13:57:51 +0300 Antonio, On Wed, Dec 15, 2004 at 07:22:00PM +0100, Antonio Tapiador del Dujo wrote: A> >Description: A> I'm researching on IPv6 multihoming. A> I need a generic 6in6 tunnel interface that accepts packets from any source, so I tried with the IFF_LINK2 as said in gif(4), but it didn't work. A> Looking at the code, I found out the address checks are done regardless of the IFF_LINK2 (netinet6/in6_gif.c, line 318) A> Shouldn't these checks take into account the IFF_LINK2? A> Moving them inside the next if works as I expected. No they shouldn't. Perhaps you have some misconfiguration with your tunnels. If you have tunnel configured as X <-> Y on machine A, then you MUST have tunnel configured Y <-> X on machine B. This is requirement for gif protocol. Otherwise you will have odd and undefined behavior, when multiple tunnels terminate on one box. The IFF_LINK2 means that incoming tunnel packets may come from interface different to interface we use for sending out tunnel packets. If you don't mind, I close the PR. -- Totus tuus, Glebius. GLEBIUS-RIPN GLEB-RIPE