Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 06:10:03 GMT From: Shunsuke SHINOMIYA <shino@fornext.org> To: freebsd-net@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re[2]: kern/125003: incorrect EtherIP header format. Message-ID: <200806270610.m5R6A3hR060682@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
The following reply was made to PR kern/125003; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Shunsuke SHINOMIYA <shino@fornext.org> To: Hiroki Sato <hrs@FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org, bug-followup@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re[2]: kern/125003: incorrect EtherIP header format. Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 15:00:45 +0900 > sh> In current implementation, 0x03 is transmitted, and, next, 0x00 is > sh> transmitted as version(3) and reserved(0x000) field. But I think tha= t > sh> 0x30 should be transmitted first from RFC3378. >=20 > I don't understand why you think 0x30 is correct. =46rom RFC3378 > In summary, the EtherIP Header has two fields: >=20 > Bits 0-3: Protocol version > Bits 4-15: Reserved for future use >=20 > 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 > +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ > | | | > | VERSION | RESERVED | > | | | > +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ >=20 > Figure 2: EtherIP Header Format (in bits) >=20 , first octet(bit 0,MSB to 7) consists of VERSION and a part of RESERVED. And VERSION is high 4 bits of the octet. Am I misunderstanding this? --=20 Shunsuke SHINOMIYA <shino@fornext.org>
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200806270610.m5R6A3hR060682>