Date: Sun, 09 Nov 2014 14:30:55 +0100 From: Ilya Bakulin <ilya@bakulin.de> To: Kristof Provost <kristof@sigsegv.be> Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org, Mark Felder <feld@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Checksumming outgoing packets in PF vs in ip[6]_output Message-ID: <545F6C8F.6010700@bakulin.de> In-Reply-To: <20141107133101.GF2044@vega.codepro.be> References: <d2f0c43909d9c9bada9a5bda7719cfca@mail.bakulin.de> <1415210423.3394438.187470637.21CD8D3D@webmail.messagingengine.com> <9355b23f1a07008eca61f16ebd828d0b@mail.bakulin.de> <20141107133101.GF2044@vega.codepro.be>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 07.11.14, 14:31, Kristof Provost wrote: > On 2014-11-05 19:11:55 (+0100), Ilya Bakulin <ilya@bakulin.de> wrote: >> On 2014-11-05 19:00, Mark Felder wrote: >>> Now if we could only stamp out the bug with ipv6 fragment and pf I'd be >>> a happy, happy daemon. :-) >> This is somewhat more complex problem, I'll take a look as the time >> allows. >> > I've been playing with it too. I have a patch which seems to be working, > but it currently drops the distinction between PFRULE_FRAGCROP and > PFRULE_FRAGDROP. OpenBSD dropped that a while ago, but I figured FreeBSD > wouldn't want user-visible changes. > > I've been meaning to look at that some more but ... ENOTIME. > It's tentatively planned as a project for Chaos Congress (end of > December), but no promises. > > If you like I can probably dig up the (non-clean) patches for you. > > Regards, > Kristof > Yes, please do it, would be interesting to look at your code! -- Regards, Ilya Bakulin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?545F6C8F.6010700>