Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 16 Oct 2007 09:15:40 +0200
From:      Max Laier <>
Subject:   Re: Send_pkt()  does it support IPV6 ?
Message-ID:  <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References:  <>

Next in thread | Previous in thread | Raw E-Mail | Index | Archive | Help
Content-Type: text/plain;
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

On Tuesday 16 October 2007, wrote:
> Hi,
> Sorry if I have missed something blindingly obvious, but I can't see
> how the send_pkt() routine in ip_fw2.c would create a valid ipv6 source
> and destination address.  This is relevent due to its use in
> ipfw_tick(). Basically in an ipv6 configuration when ipfw_tick() goes
> off to send a keep-alive, I think send_pkt() would produce an erroneous
> IPV4 style packet due to its use of id->dst_ip and id->src_ip rather
> than  dst_ip6 and src_ip6 ?   Further, ipfw_tick() then calls
> ip_output() rather than any ip6_output() routine.
> I am just checking before I make any modifications that I am not
> missing something fundamental that invalidates my analysis.

I don't think you are missing something.  IPv6 support in ipfw is still a=20
second class citizen (as is stateful filtering).  I remember seeing a=20
mail with similar topic just recently, but can't recall on which list or=20
from whom.

I don't see a PR for this - could you please create one so it's not=20
forgotten about?

/"\  Best regards,                      |
\ /  Max Laier                          | ICQ #67774661
 X  | mlaier@EFnet
/ \  ASCII Ribbon Campaign              | Against HTML Mail and News

Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc 
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD)



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <>