From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Nov 9 04:03:28 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0505E106564A for ; Tue, 9 Nov 2010 04:03:28 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from will@firepipe.net) Received: from mail-wy0-f182.google.com (mail-wy0-f182.google.com [74.125.82.182]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98A278FC18 for ; Tue, 9 Nov 2010 04:03:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wyb32 with SMTP id 32so191067wyb.13 for ; Mon, 08 Nov 2010 20:03:26 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.216.191.210 with SMTP id g60mr6277322wen.5.1289273746582; Mon, 08 Nov 2010 19:35:46 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.216.246.3 with HTTP; Mon, 8 Nov 2010 19:35:46 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <77F1671C-33AE-4AAB-8442-7653B00F7E04@develooper.com> References: <17903237-CBF6-4CC3-8CA3-29D9BB65538F@develooper.com> <4CD36BD0.4040409@tomjudge.com> <77F1671C-33AE-4AAB-8442-7653B00F7E04@develooper.com> Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2010 20:35:46 -0700 Message-ID: From: Will Andrews To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: "kernel: carp_input: received len 20 < sizeof(struct carp_header)" messages 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: Tue, 09 Nov 2010 04:03:28 -0000 On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 4:47 PM, Ask Bj=F8rn Hansen wro= te: > I agree that it was pretty dumb of the OpenBSD developers to just stomp o= n another protocol ID for their (and ours in FreeBSD ...) implementation. Actually, in this particular case I think it was justified. The IANA refused to allocate a separate protocol number for CARP. Given that, and the fact that CARP and VRRP serve generally the same purpose, it makes sense that they use the same number. Using an "unused" number runs the risk of conflicting with a different unregistered protocol, or one that was registered after the number was chosen. FreeBSD could require administrators to configure the number on all participating hosts on a given network, but that may be non-trivial to implement in a particular network stack. With the recent changes to CARP in FreeBSD, however, it could be made to attach to a different protocol number relatively easily. FreeBSD could allow configuring CARP to silently ignore invalid packets. That would definitely be trivial to implement, but it doesn't solve the issue that a particular network segment might be running fussy VRRP hosts. --Will.