Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2010 20:35:46 -0700 From: Will Andrews <will@firepipe.net> To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: "kernel: carp_input: received len 20 < sizeof(struct carp_header)" messages Message-ID: <AANLkTikiaWduW4-p56ibLQRvsm2uvRbNqS-taN19XiVa@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <77F1671C-33AE-4AAB-8442-7653B00F7E04@develooper.com> References: <17903237-CBF6-4CC3-8CA3-29D9BB65538F@develooper.com> <4CD36BD0.4040409@tomjudge.com> <77F1671C-33AE-4AAB-8442-7653B00F7E04@develooper.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 4:47 PM, Ask Bj=F8rn Hansen <ask@develooper.com> wro= te: > I agree that it was pretty dumb of the OpenBSD developers to just stomp o= n another protocol ID for their (and ours in FreeBSD ...) implementation. Actually, in this particular case I think it was justified. The IANA refused to allocate a separate protocol number for CARP. Given that, and the fact that CARP and VRRP serve generally the same purpose, it makes sense that they use the same number. Using an "unused" number runs the risk of conflicting with a different unregistered protocol, or one that was registered after the number was chosen. FreeBSD could require administrators to configure the number on all participating hosts on a given network, but that may be non-trivial to implement in a particular network stack. With the recent changes to CARP in FreeBSD, however, it could be made to attach to a different protocol number relatively easily. FreeBSD could allow configuring CARP to silently ignore invalid packets. That would definitely be trivial to implement, but it doesn't solve the issue that a particular network segment might be running fussy VRRP hosts. --Will.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?AANLkTikiaWduW4-p56ibLQRvsm2uvRbNqS-taN19XiVa>