From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jan 17 18:23:34 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72D3A16A415 for ; Wed, 17 Jan 2007 18:23:34 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from hugme2@gmail.com) Received: from an-out-0708.google.com (an-out-0708.google.com [209.85.132.248]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CE1513C45E for ; Wed, 17 Jan 2007 18:23:34 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from hugme2@gmail.com) Received: by an-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id c24so1279883ana for ; Wed, 17 Jan 2007 10:23:33 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references:x-google-sender-auth; b=OrwmqyE/d9XkoDQvjUCOmBfTJOTbCigJ9Szgvbcq9AzseBeSHNefXYEDIHjVc9EdpmRhJTfIseKTSUohEybyBoXkSFkd/4/Qt2G/05M4BQ2Fd9+xRhTdFvphAoz52w/Smx7SPHryXswPVOLs9uB2Amd1/5ytGO4sodsg6EAIgrE= Received: by 10.78.201.10 with SMTP id y10mr2135476huf.1169058207117; Wed, 17 Jan 2007 10:23:27 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.78.178.2 with HTTP; Wed, 17 Jan 2007 10:23:27 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 13:23:27 -0500 From: "Hug Me" Sender: hugme2@gmail.com To: "Bill Fenner" In-Reply-To: <200701162200.l0GM0FkG011595@bright.research.att.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20070112163057.2a3ec8f0.rnsanchez@wait4.org> <45A807F8.7080603@FreeBSD.org> <45ACCFF4.4040709@cisco.com> <200701162200.l0GM0FkG011595@bright.research.att.com> X-Google-Sender-Auth: f6b44d383d3047f3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.5 Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org, Randall Stewart , "Bruce M. Simpson" , Ricardo Nabinger Sanchez Subject: Re: Problem with port 0 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: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 18:23:34 -0000 Should I submit this to the bug reports? The problem is that we are upgrading around 250 firewalls. the only systems we have connected L2 to the firewalls are freebsd systems. without a patch we are going to have to fly out to each firewall and do the upgrade. Each firewall being in a different city you could imagine this is going to be a logistical nightmare. One of the other problems we are going to face is the version of freebsd. we have everything from 4.8 to 6.2 installed at the systems so even with a patch we are going to have to figure out how to install it on each version. On 1/16/07, Bill Fenner wrote: > > > I'd note that RFC 768 explicitly mentions this possibility: > > Source Port is an optional field, when meaningful, it indicates the port > of the sending process, and may be assumed to be the port to which a > reply should be addressed in the absence of any other information. If > not used, a value of zero is inserted. > > I think Hug is saying that since the boot loader is the only thing that's > running on the box, it's got no reason to use a port number, so it's > not used. > > Hug's error message: > >with default tftp - Jan 12 09:37:55 dukeengi01 tftpd[80898]: connect: > Can't > >assign requested address > > is consistent with the following code from in_pcbconnect_setup(): > > if (sin->sin_port == 0) > return (EADDRNOTAVAIL); > > which dates back to BSD 4.4 and before. > > This is probably not completely wrong, but it's not right in this > particular > case - tftpd should be able to connect a UDP socket to a remote port 0 in > order to respond to this request. > > (FreeBSD definitely can't send from port 0, but that's OK because we don't > want to.) > > Bill > -- ******************************************************************* Don't ever forget to -*HUGME*- Yield to Temptation ... it may not pass your way again. -- Lazarus Long, "Time Enough for Love"