Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 22:04:12 +0000 From: "Bruce M. Simpson" <bms@FreeBSD.org> To: freebsd-net@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: kern/120958: no response to ICMP traffic on interface configured with a link-local address Message-ID: <47BF46DC.6030700@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <200802222124.m1MLO7qq012802@freefall.freebsd.org> References: <200802222124.m1MLO7qq012802@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
I looked at this very briefly. It's gnarly because in_canforward() is a candidate for inlining and is a predicate which is being overloaded with different meanings by ip_forward()/ip_input() and icmp_reflect(). So whilst the fix is most likely a 3 liner, it risks making the code look crap. We genuinely don't want to forward 169.254.0.0/16 traffic, however we genuinely need to reply to ICMP which originates from these ranges. bms@FreeBSD.org wrote: > Synopsis: no response to ICMP traffic on interface configured with a link-local address > > Responsible-Changed-From-To: bms->freebsd-net > Responsible-Changed-By: bms > Responsible-Changed-When: Fri 22 Feb 2008 21:23:23 UTC > Responsible-Changed-Why: > The secretary disavows all knowledge of your actions. > ["Responsible" implies "I'll fix it", I said no such thing.. I *MIGHT* > get around to it, but "Responsible" implies there's an obligation. > Cheeky linimon!] > > http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=120958 >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?47BF46DC.6030700>