At Wed, 2 Oct 2019 17:04:23 -0400,
Ryan Stone wrote:
>
> At work, our product is putting through an IPv6 conformance test and
> it's found an issue in our handling of Routing Advertisements (RAs).
> If we receive an RA that does not specify an lladdr, then
> nd6_cache_lladdr() is called with lladd
At Thu, 18 Oct 2018 08:53:14 +0700,
Victor Sudakov wrote:
> > The router may send a router advertisement whenever it wants. That's
why
> > your machine seems to work even without rtsold. However, SLAAC
addresses
> > expire after a certain amount of time. rtsold will ask the router for a
> > ne
At Fri, 4 May 2018 13:19:57 +0300,
"Andrey V. Elsukov" wrote:
> > Doesn't work with -p either.
> > netstat -I lo0 -s -p udp
> > :udp: no per-interface stats routine
> >
> > It would be very useful if this actually worked.
> Only IPv6 and ICMPv6 have per-interface statistics counters. Other
> pro
At Sun, 23 Apr 2017 22:48:05 +0300,
Lev Serebryakov wrote:
> rtadvd[2663]: non-zero lifetime RA but net.inet6.ip6.forwarding=0. Ignored.
>
> But I don't need IPv6 forwarding! I only want Prefix announcement to avoid
> manual configuration of Windows host and virtual boxes on this host!
>
> Is i
At Tue, 10 May 2016 10:26:59 +0300,
Dmitry Sivachenko wrote:
> Sometimes ping6 command writes the following warning to stderr:
>
> ping6: failed to get receiving hop limit
>
> I can easily reproduce this with
> for n in `jot - 1 1000` ; do /sbin/ping6 -n -c 5 $HOST > /dev/null ; done
>
> It is ve
At Sat, 20 Dec 2014 23:40:37 +0100,
Ilya Bakulin wrote:
> But what we do is just silently discarding the overlapping segment, see [2].
> When using PF with fragment reassembly, the behavior changes to what RFC
> says
> and the packet is completely dropped.
>
> There is no security issue with curr
At Fri, 7 Nov 2014 13:33:43 +0100,
Matthias Apitz wrote:
> My question is: What does the %em0 mean in the IPv6 addr and why it is
> not working without it?
[...]
> I consulted the handbook and the RFC:
>
> https://www.freebsd.org/doc/handbook/network-ipv6.html
> http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3513.tx
At Thu, 04 Sep 2014 10:42:59 -0400,
John Baldwin wrote:
> > It looks like on Solaris, they support IPv4-mapped multicast addresses for
> > IPV6, and things work when they create an IPv6 socket, and then put an
> > IPv4-mapped multicast address in it. For Linux, they have specific
> > code paths
At Tue, 22 Jul 2014 12:35:22 -0700,
Loganaden Velvindron wrote:
> > usually subjective, and different people may have different opinions.
> > Personally, I often find "ping6 -w" quite useful for debugging
> > purposes, and I think limiting its use to link-local by default gives
>
> Agreed. Perhap
At Tue, 22 Jul 2014 10:01:50 -0700,
Loganaden Velvindron wrote:
> > > Security Considerations
> > >
> > >This protocol has the potential of revealing information useful to a
> > >would-be attacker. An implementation of this protocol MUST have a
> > >default configuration that refuse
At Sun, 20 Jul 2014 02:04:10 -0700,
Loganaden Velvindron wrote:
> Security Considerations
>
>This protocol shares the security issues of ICMPv6 that are
>documented in the "Security Considerations" section of [5].
>
>This protocol has the potential of revealing information useful to
At Thu, 27 Mar 2014 17:23:55 +0100,
Mikal Sande wrote:
> Is the IPv6 neighbor cache supposed to not inlcude incomplete entries? When
> my freebsd box resolves a previously unknown ipv6 address with ndp it does
> not add anything to the neighbor cache before it gets a reachability
> confirmatio
At Fri, 28 Jun 2013 17:30:21 -0500,
"Mark Felder" wrote:
> Later after a bit more digging and discussion I've come to learn that the
So, you've gone through the literature on this topic including
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-cmetz-v6ops-v4mapped-api-harmful-01
?
> security aspect may simp
At Sat, 11 May 2013 22:09:49 -0700,
Kevin Oberman wrote:
> > > However I'm only able to send IPv6 packets from my host that fit an MTU
> > > of 1280 even though I've set the tunnel interface and per-route MTU to
> > > 1480, based on the "outer" ethernet connection having an MTU of 1500.
> > > Hur
At Thu, 10 Jan 2013 15:50:30 -0800,
prabhakar lakhera wrote:
> I see that* ND6_LLINFO_WAITDELETE *was done away with long time back.
> I was looking for any historical reasons for why it was needed and what
> triggered its removal.
I'd normally change history in the original KAME repository:
ht
At Tue, 18 Sep 2012 18:11:54 +,
"Varadarajan, Sudharshan" wrote:
> When I was going through the file nd6.h, (../sysnetinet6/nd6.h) I find that
> macro (prefix list size) "PRLSTSIZ" is defined as 10. Is there any particular
> reason for having a lower value like this?
I don't remember, but
At Thu, 17 May 2012 15:13:08 -0700,
prabhakar lakhera wrote:
> Removing the hyperlinks (these seem to get appended by gmail:
>
> Hi,
>
> Is there any way for the administrator to set an interface's scope if
> for link local scope?
I don't think it's been merged to *BSDs, but the original KAME
At Sat, 14 Apr 2012 16:41:52 +,
"Bjoern A. Zeeb" wrote:
> > The issue you mentioned comes from an implementation decision of the
> > KAME IPv6 stack.
> > The attached patch should address it. However, it may break the
> > applications which expect that getifaddrs() returns a link-local
> > a
At Fri, 9 Mar 2012 23:26:01 +,
Alex Yong wrote:
> I've spotted that in IPv4 there is the sysctl "net.inet.ip.check_interface"
> which defaults to set, but I've been unable to find any guarantees that
> strong host model is enforced in v6 in the comments or internet. According
> to the IPv6 C
At Fri, 18 Mar 2011 21:35:16 +0500,
"Eugene M. Zheganin" wrote:
> > You don't say what prefix length rtadvd is sending or that you're seeing
> > in the wireshark log.
> >
> > Do you have prefixlen#120 in your rtadvd.conf?
Whether using /120 is a good idea might have to be debated, but anyway..
At Tue, 10 Aug 2010 14:26:09 +0530,
Saurav Dasgupta wrote:
> Why there is no support for route extension header in freebsd v7.2 ?
> From which release we have the code that support route extension header ?
If you mean the type 0 routing header, see RFC5095.
I don't know exactly from which versi
At Tue, 19 Jan 2010 08:59:56 -0300,
Fernando Gont wrote:
> RA messages seem to be required to have a Source Address in the
> fe80::/32 prefix, rather than in the fe80::/10 prefix. That is, the
> first 32 bits of the IPv6 Source address must be fe80:, or else the
> message is dropped (at least
At Thu, 14 May 2009 14:42:35 -0700,
"Kevin Oberman" wrote:
> I then captured the ICMP and discovered that the kernel was fragmenting
> all of them! Worse, the fragment was sent out before the ICMP! What the
> heck is going on! Thread synchronization?
>
> When I captured the packets (via tcpdump
At Wed, 06 May 2009 17:17:52 -0700,
Bob Van Zant wrote:
> I guess that changes my question quite a bit. If you randomly fire off an
> unsolicited NA right after configuring an interface should that cause a DAD
> failure?
Actually, in that case you shouldn't send out the NA in the first
place bec
At Wed, 06 May 2009 15:49:45 -0700,
Bob Van Zant wrote:
> > I'm afraid we need clarification first...what do you mean by
> > "reconfigure an interface with an IPv6 address"? Do you mean adding a
> > new IPv6 address to an interface? If so, I'm not sure why you
> > referred to the following part
At Tue, 05 May 2009 11:40:12 -0700,
Bob Van Zant wrote:
>
> I'm working on a piece of software that, among other things, allows an
> administrator to easily configure IPv6 interfaces on a FreeBSD host. I've
> run into a problem where whenever I reconfigure an interface with an IPv6
> address Free
At Fri, 01 May 2009 18:33:50 +0100,
Bruce Simpson wrote:
> During the MLDv2 refactoring, I removed some old KAME code which
> supports the ability to listen to *all* multicast groups.
> It isn't clear to me whether this code was still in use, and I couldn't
> find information about it in the no
At Wed, 17 Dec 2008 21:27:58 +0200,
Artyom Viklenko wrote:
> BIND 9.5.0-P2 already in ports and seems working well.
> Giv it a try.
In this context 9.5.0-P2 won't help. All 9.x.y-P[12] versions have
the same problem.
---
JINMEI, Tatuya
Internet Systems Consortium, Inc.
At Wed, 17 Dec 2008 15:20:02 +0200,
Ott Köstner wrote:
> named[63198]: socket: too many open file descriptors
> last message repeated 26 times
>
> Bind version is: BIND 9.4.2-P2
Please try BIND 9.4.3. Even with all attempts to mitigate the trouble
and with tweaking parameters, 9.4.2-P2 still h
At Tue, 15 Jul 2008 16:09:17 -0700,
Bakul Shah <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> IIRC, when poll() returns n, you only look at the first n
> values in the pollfd array so it is a win when you expect a
> very small number of fds to be ready. In the select case you
> have to test the bit array until you
At Tue, 15 Jul 2008 15:12:31 -0700,
Bakul Shah <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Besides, I guess that the P1 versions severely suffer from heavy
> > overhead of select(2) when it regularly opens more than 1000 sockets.
> > Even if 'too many open file' messages are gone, many users won't
> > accept t
At Tue, 15 Jul 2008 23:09:30 +0200,
Kris Kennaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > If that's regularly happening, I'm afraid recent P1 versions don't
> > handle that well, and recommend you try 9.4.3b2 ore 9.5.1b1.
>
> Or increase the number of file descriptors as a workaround, per my email :)
Doe
At Tue, 15 Jul 2008 22:54:11 +0200,
Thomas Vogt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Since i updated my FreeBSD 6.3 dns server with the latest bind
> >> version
> >> in the ports (dns/bind94) my system is flooding my log with "too many
> >> open file descriptors" messages.
> >>
> >> Is there somethin
At Tue, 15 Jul 2008 14:13:11 +0200,
Thomas Vogt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Since i updated my FreeBSD 6.3 dns server with the latest bind version
> in the ports (dns/bind94) my system is flooding my log with "too many
> open file descriptors" messages.
>
> Is there something i can do?
How ma
At Mon, 26 May 2008 18:49:35 -0400,
Steve Bertrand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is there anyone here who can advise me where in the source tree I would
> find the DNS resolver code that performs /A record lookups, and more
> specifically, the fallback to A lookup if fails?
Assuming you
At Sat, 3 May 2008 20:00:43 +1000,
Edwin Groothuis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Before somebody shoots me down on it: I know that ipfw_divert() is
> not suitable for IPv6 packets.
[snip]
> which is what I expected. So why doesn't this get displayed for the
> IPv6 sockets?
I don't know much abou
At Tue, 12 Feb 2008 17:31:57 -0800,
Xin LI <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It looks like that certain (mis)configuration by the baidu.com DNS
> administrators has caused this, but I have no clue why our resolver
> would return NXDOMAIN after it gets a positive response? (Yes, I know
> that _ is not
At Sat, 5 Jan 2008 12:52:53 +0100,
Michael Tuexen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> aren't site-local IPv6 addresses depreceated (RFC 3879)? So shouldn't
> the site-local stuff be removed?
RFC3879 only deprecates site-local *unicast* addresses; the notion of
"site-local" is still valid for multicast a
At Tue, 20 Nov 2007 23:17:43 +0900,
JINMEI Tatuya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> formats "1:2:3:4:5:6:7:8" as ":2:3:4:5:6:7:8". This can be confirmed
> by the sample code attached to this message by
> - saving the file as e.g. "foo.c"
> - cc -o foo foo.c
> - ./foo 1:2:3:4:5:6:7:8
>
> I've also att
(This should probably be reported to an OpenBSD forum, but I'm not
subscribing to any of the lists, so I'm posting this to freebsd-net.
I believe pf maintainers watch this list, too...)
I've found a minor error in pf_print_host() which is revealed for some
time of IPv6 addresses. This routine alw
At Fri, 12 Oct 2007 18:54:11 +0900,
Byung-Hee HWANG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Let me say this.. I just like all stuff around IPv6. And now I need one
> native IPv6 address for my FreeBSD box, which is email gateway. There
> was unknown problem related to IPv6 area between my FreeBSD box
> [2002
At Tue, 28 Aug 2007 19:49:11 +0800,
blue <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> According to the GDB backtrace, I think this is what I am talking about.
>
> Besides, this would result in infinite loop just by looking at the
> codes. However, the author seems knowing the problem, too. The comments
> in es
At Tue, 28 Aug 2007 10:15:31 +0800,
blue <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> When receiving a "packet too big" ICMP error message, FreeBSD will call
> the ctlinput() function of the upper protocol. If the preceding packet
> is an ESP IPv6 packet, then FreeBSD will call esp6_ctlinput(). In
> esp6_ctli
At Tue, 21 Aug 2007 18:35:05 +0200,
Daniel Hartmeier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > But I'm not sure if I understood well - you suspect that only 8 bytes of
> > tcp header are copied from the original tcp packet to the icmp message
> > by the router?
>
> No, the router is only required (by the RF
At Tue, 21 Aug 2007 16:16:51 +0200,
Jacek Zapala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Btw, how can I examine the route mtu cache? In older FreeBSD
> netstat -ranW showed cloned routes and their mtus, but this is no longer
> the case with FreeBSD 6.2.
try
sysctl net.inet.tcp.hostcache.list
and see the "
At Fri, 10 Aug 2007 13:45:46 +0800,
blue <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Although DNS resolver may lead to some delay or misbehavior of the upper
> application, I think that would be caller's resposibility to decide
> which result it would like to use. I am not so sure about the check in
> KAME im
At Fri, 10 Aug 2007 11:52:09 +0800,
blue <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> When looking into kame-20070801-freebsd54-snap, the function,
> _dns_getaddrinfo(), defined in getaddrinfo.c, will check if the device
> gets any IPv4/global IPv6 address before sending out any A/ query by
> calling addrc
At Tue, 22 May 2007 01:48:26 +0100,
"Bruce M. Simpson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Responsible-Changed-From-To: freebsd-net->bms
> > Responsible-Changed-By: andre
> > Responsible-Changed-When: Sun May 13 18:36:25 UTC 2007
> > Responsible-Changed-Why:
> > Send over to BMS. He's active in that
Hello,
I have a question about how the ipfw2 implementation performs stateful
operation for (IPv4/IPv6) fragmented packets. Is it possible to make
a state for a flow and match that state against fragmented packets?
As far as I can see from the source code (sys/netinet/ip_fw2.c) it
seems impossibl
At Tue, 22 May 2007 01:48:26 +0100,
"Bruce M. Simpson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Synopsis: [ipv6] IPv6-related crash if if_delmulti
> >
> > Responsible-Changed-From-To: freebsd-net->bms
> > Responsible-Changed-By: andre
> > Responsible-Changed-When: Sun May 13 18:36:25 UTC 2007
> > Responsibl
At Thu, 5 Apr 2007 16:25:47 +0100,
Andrew McDonald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The behavior looks reasonable, but I'd code it more explicitly with
> > some comments so that the intent is clear and others can correctly
> > modify it for future extensions. A possible patch to implement it is
> >
At Thu, 5 Apr 2007 09:16:39 +0100,
Andrew McDonald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thinking about it a bit, there is a simple fix that leaves MLD working
> (but currently doesn't provide a way for other applications to use
> router alert). The IPv6 Router Alert Option (RAO) has a 16-bit value
> field
At Wed, 4 Apr 2007 22:18:15 +0100,
Andrew McDonald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In the absence of a full fix, it would probably be a good idea to
> remove this unconditional check. This would avoid FreeBSD blocking IPv6
> packets with router alert set. However, I'm not sure if this would have
> an
> On Fri, 09 Feb 2007 23:21:33 +0100,
> Dimitry Andric <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Bruce A. Mah wrote:
>> I've convinced myself that this problem needs to be tested in isolation
>> (i.e. you have complete control over both ends of the tunnel) because
>> incoming packets over the tunnel ca
> On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 16:56:49 -0800,
> "Eugene M. Kim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Note that the two automatically configured addresses on em0 are still
> preferred, while the prefix 2001:470:1f01:3222::/64 is deprecated on the
> router.
> I believe rtadvd(8) should advertise deprecated
> On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 14:09:28 +0100,
> "Frank Behrens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I have an IPv6 setup with temporary addresses (RFC3041). To switch this on I
> used "sysctl
> net.inet6.ip6.use_tempaddr=1". The temporary address is generated and
> meanwhile expired.
> Does anybody
> On Sun, 21 Jan 2007 09:32:44 +0200,
> John Hay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> There's another workaround for people stuck in this situation and who
>> aren't in a position to try this diff. That is to manually install
>> the host route like this:
>>
>> # route add -host -inet6 :
> On Sat, 20 Jan 2007 21:42:44 + (UTC),
> "Bjoern A. Zeeb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
emaste> I think an address like 1.002.3.4 is bizarre, but is our inet_pton
incorrect
emaste> in rejecting it?
>>
>> The change was taken from BIND9. The following is from BIND9's
>> CHANGES:
>>
>>
> On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 20:20:47 +0100,
> Max Laier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> > Any ideas? Any papers that deal with this problem?
>>
>> Assuming you don't want to use one of the standard cryptographic
>> ones (which I can imagine being a bit slow for something done
>> per-packet), the
> On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 10:50:29 -0700 (MST),
> "M. Warner Losh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Does anybody know if the FreeBSD ipv6 stack has passed the IOL Silver
> or Gold levels from the University of New Hampshire?
I don't have a direct answer to this question, but you might be
interest
(sorry for the delayed response, been busy for a while...)
> On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 10:03:05 -0700,
> "Krejsa, Dan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> This appears to make the autoconfiguration work fine, and I
> encountered no other connectivity issues in brief testing;
> but a coworker of mine n
> On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 15:19:55 -0700,
> "Krejsa, Dan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Some code in the in6_update_ifa() function in netinet6/in6.c
> enforces that if an IPv6 destination address is specified for
> an interface address, the interface must be point-to-point or
> loopback (fine),
> On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 00:46:15 +0300,
> Alexander Motin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I have found to myself strange behaviour and difference between routing
> to IPs on ngX, tunX interfaces. I will be very grateful if somebody
> explain me why it is working in such way or give me a link
> On Mon, 2 Oct 2006 13:56:06 +0200,
> John Hay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> The key point here is whether the route is statically created or not.
>> And, if I understand your intent correctly, the host route you want to
>> install is not really "static" in that it can (or should) be remo
> On Fri, 8 Sep 2006 18:15:14 +0200,
> John Hay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> With this and my FreeBSD/IPv6 port of olsrd I can run multiple wireless
> interfaces with the same IPv6 subnet and olsrd can make it all work.
I should have looked at it much earlier (sorry about the delay), but
> On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 13:42:29 -0500,
> Brooks Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> Um...I'm not sure if this is even possible. Let's forget mDNS and
>> go back to basic IP.
>> Say a multi-homed host has two interfaces both configured with an
>> address in the rage 169.254/16, say 169.254.1
> On Thu, 08 Jun 2006 17:51:49 -0700,
> "Bruce A. Mah" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> If memory serves me right, George V. Neville-Neil wrote:
>>> After way too long this has been tested and committed to HEAD, with an
>>> MFC timout of 1 week. I have done only limited, aka, ping, testing o
> On Mon, 22 May 2006 09:50:37 -0700,
> "George V. Neville-Neil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> Could you try the patch attached below? It's for 6.1-RELEASE, but I
>> guess it's pretty easy to apply to CURRENT.
>>
>> The essential reason of this problem is that the latest kernel regards
>
> On Thu, 18 May 2006 01:35:35 +0900,
> JINMEI Tatuya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> I'm seeing the messages on the machine in Eindhoven (running RELENG_6
>> from a few days/weeks ago), but they also show up on my HEAD machine at
>> home. Below is the output of `ifconfig gif0` on my machine
> On Mon, 8 May 2006 08:58:41 +0200,
> Ed Schouten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I'm seeing the messages on the machine in Eindhoven (running RELENG_6
> from a few days/weeks ago), but they also show up on my HEAD machine at
> home. Below is the output of `ifconfig gif0` on my machine at ho
> On Mon, 08 May 2006 05:44:51 +0900 (JST),
> Hideki Yamamoto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I wonder if IPv6 raw socket can be used only for ICMPv6.
No, you can use any non built-in protocols on an IPv6 raw socket. In
fact, IPv6 PIM daemons use IPv6 raw sockets for IPPROTO_PIM. But...
>
> On Tue, 11 Apr 2006 10:52:31 +0200,
> Stefan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Any suggestions for the second major problem?
Sorry, but nope. But I guess if you can post a complete source code
(not a snippet of it) and arguments to the program that can reproduce
the problem, and identify th
> On Mon, 10 Apr 2006 11:40:46 +0200,
> Stefan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I'm trying to port my little application to the FreeBSD-system and
> encountered some difficults I can't solve. The program is running
> fine on SunOS, OpenBSD, Mac OS X and Debian GNU/Linux so I thought it
>
> On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 14:03:01 -0600,
> Craig Boston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> > Attached is a quick hack to protect the cached route with a mutex. A
>> > better fix with less overhead would be to allocate the route in a local
>> > variable on the stack, and only copy it to the softc
> On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 14:56:44 -0800,
> Doug Barton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> Could you try the patch attached below?
> I probably should have mentioned this earlier, but I started testing this
> patch on HEAD and RELENG_6 shortly after you sent it, and I haven't been
> able to repr
> On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 20:05:28 -0600,
> Craig Boston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> I seem to be running into a race condition in ip6_getpmtu. I've been
>> having sporadic panics recently -- sometimes the machine will last a
>> week, sometimes it'll panic twice in a day. The backtrace is
> On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 01:58:28 -0500,
> Kris Kennaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> Are you sure you applied the patch? In the 'patched' version of
>> nd6.c, line 585 is blank, so at least it doesn't match the above
>> backtrace.
> Sorry, you're right - what was happening was that I'd ap
> On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 02:14:11 -0500,
> Kris Kennaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> >> Sorry, not really (we've not got a test environment to reproduce it).
>> >> But from a quick review of nd6.c, there seems to be one thing that is
>> >> obviously wrong. The possible bug has been there s
> On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 22:50:25 -0500,
> Kris Kennaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> Sorry, not really (we've not got a test environment to reproduce it).
>> But from a quick review of nd6.c, there seems to be one thing that is
>> obviously wrong. The possible bug has been there since rev.
> On Tue, 7 Feb 2006 00:45:02 -0500,
> Kris Kennaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> I ran ntpdate on an amd64 system with ipv6 enabled and a skewed clock
>> (ntpdate stepped it back by about an hour), and immediately got a
>> use-after-free panic in ifaddr. When I rebooted with memguard en
> On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 14:29:02 +0100,
> Andre Oppermann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> Doesn't this mean an m_tag attached to the mbuf to be freed, if any,
>> will remain without any reference? Perhaps I'm missing something very
>> trivial. It would be appreciated if someone could clarify
While tracking a different issue, I felt I just got confused. From a
very quick look at m_freem() and m_free(), it looks there is a leakage
of m_tag. This is the definition of m_freem() in rev. 1.160 of
uipc_mbuf.c:
void
m_freem(struct mbuf *mb)
{
while (mb != NULL)
mb =
> On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 19:44:38 -0500,
> Kris Kennaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I ran ntpdate on an amd64 system with ipv6 enabled and a skewed clock
> (ntpdate stepped it back by about an hour), and immediately got a
> use-after-free panic in ifaddr. When I rebooted with memguard enab
> On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 05:03:38 + (GMT),
> priya yelgar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Running racoon on a Freebsd-4.11 machine gives a
> kernel panic.
> I am using the racoon from ports directory which comes
> with the freebsd installation.
Can you provide a backtrace of the kernel core?
> On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 12:21:17 +0200,
> asko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I have tried also des encryption and sha1 authentication, agressive and
> main mode, and so on, no joy ;-( It probably needs some specific tweaks?
> FreeBSD 5.4-RELEASE, racoon-20050510a, Watchguard SOHO 6 tc fir
(I'm afraid we're going to an off-topic. If this message needs a
response, we should perhaps do that off-list.)
> On Fri, 3 Jun 2005 15:40:14 -0700,
> "Li, Qing" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> Are you perhaps asking for .emacs setting which conforms to this (the
>> four-space) style?
>
> On Thu, 2 Jun 2005 16:01:40 -0700,
> "Li, Qing" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> Then please send me your final patch including proposed
>> commit message for final review again. After that, when no
>> more issues arise, you can go ahead and commit the change.
>>
>> Oh, BTW. Don't be a
> On Thu, 02 Jun 2005 13:33:32 +0200,
> Andre Oppermann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> I verified this behavior on both FreeBSD 5.4 Release and 6.0-CURRENT.
> Looks very strange indeed.
>> I think this behavior is probably not intended and should be treated
>> as a bug. I did a quick patc
> On Mon, 30 May 2005 14:15:34 +0200 (CEST),
> Olivier Casasole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I would like to use mping under FreeBSD 5.3.
> mping seems to be installed in /kame directory but it
> doesn't work.
> Do you know why?
> Or do you know where i can find a version of mping?
Pleas
> On Tue, 17 May 2005 11:05:10 -0700,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
>> > *) Insert proper return value checking.
>>
>> in6_embedscope() should not fail in this context (so we could even
>> panic if it does), but you probably want to be very proactive by
>> eliminating as many (hidden) assump
> On Thu, 12 May 2005 22:49:12 -0400,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> In a continuing effort to clean up some code nits in the IPv6 code
> I'd like to propose the following diffs. There is a comment, starting
> with a *) explaining the problem and proposed fix.
Thanks for your continuous ef
> On Fri, 13 May 2005 08:11:14 -0700,
> Mark Klein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> You couldn't get to my web site and I see that this mail has been
> in the queue for a couple of days. I've resent this from the client
> site to see if it gets through.
According to the result of "ifconfig -a
> On Thu, 12 May 2005 06:57:32 -0700,
> "Mark Klein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> Forwarded to the kame folks as well as they might have already fixed
>> this in their own code.
>>
>> Can you tell us what else is going on when this happens?
>>
>> Is it random?
> It appears to happen at
> On Wed, 11 May 2005 15:21:49 -0700,
> "Mark Klein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I've recently been experiencing a panic that has quickly grown
> beyond my capabilities to debug. Any help is greatly appreciated.
> Please see:
> http://www.dis.com/freebsd.1.html
I cannot reach the web s
> On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 18:32:48 +1000 (EST),
> Neo-Vortex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> >> - assuming the prefix is "P/64", do the followings:
>> >> # ifconfig IFNAME inet6 P::1 prefixlen 64 alias autoconf
>> >> # ifconfig IFNAME inet6 P::2 prefixlen 64 alias autoconf
>> >> # ifconfig IFNAM
> On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 17:04:22 +1000 (EST),
> Neo-Vortex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> - assuming the prefix is "P/64", do the followings:
>> # ifconfig IFNAME inet6 P::1 prefixlen 64 alias autoconf
>> # ifconfig IFNAME inet6 P::2 prefixlen 64 alias autoconf
>> # ifconfig IFNAME inet6 P::3
> On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 06:40:05 +0300,
> Petri Helenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> No.
>>
>> BTW: are you trying to configure multiple IPv6 addresses on a single
>> interface by specifying multiple interface IDs and getting prefix from
>> router advertisements? If so, it's inherently d
> On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 14:20:07 +0300,
> Petri Helenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Is there a way to configure multiple IPv6 address aliases without
> knowing the prefix in advance and just specifying the lower 64 bits on
> the ifconfig_ lines on rc.conf?
No.
BTW: are you trying to co
> On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 11:48:13 -0500,
> "Michael C. Cambria" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On 4.10-Stable & 5.3-Stable, I'm able to forward IPv6 traffic just fine
> when I manually start rtadvd. However, each reboot, only one interface
> supplied to rtadvd_interfaces actually gets enable
> On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 14:01:29 -0800,
> "Kevin Oberman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I think I have found a problem with TCP when run over IPv6.
> I set my MSS for TCP to 1460 to allow a full 1500 byte MTU to be
> utilized on my systems. (Yes, I see that this does break some things
> like
1 - 100 of 118 matches
Mail list logo
