Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 19:22:00 +0100 (CET) From: Antonio Tapiador del Dujo <atapiador@dit.upm.es> To: FreeBSD-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.org Subject: kern/75121: Wrong behaviour of IFF_LINK2 bit in 6in6 gifs? Message-ID: <200412151822.iBFIM0c9000795@vagabundo.dit.upm.es> Resent-Message-ID: <200412151720.iBFHKREV044807@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>Number: 75121 >Category: kern >Synopsis: Wrong behaviour of IFF_LINK2 bit in 6in6 gifs? >Confidential: no >Severity: non-critical >Priority: low >Responsible: freebsd-bugs >State: open >Quarter: >Keywords: >Date-Required: >Class: sw-bug >Submitter-Id: current-users >Arrival-Date: Wed Dec 15 17:20:27 GMT 2004 >Closed-Date: >Last-Modified: >Originator: Antonio Tapiador del Dujo >Release: FreeBSD 5.3-RELEASE i386 >Organization: DIT - UPM >Environment: System: FreeBSD vagabundo.dit.upm.es 5.3-RELEASE FreeBSD 5.3-RELEASE #1: Tue Dec 14 21:08:08 CET 2004 root@vagabundo.dit.upm.es:/usr/src/sys/i386/compile/MH-4 i386 >Description: I'm researching on IPv6 multihoming. I need a generic 6in6 tunnel interface that accepts packets from any source, so I tried with the IFF_LINK2 as said in gif(4), but it didn't work. Looking at the code, I found out the address checks are done regardless of the IFF_LINK2 (netinet6/in6_gif.c, line 318) Shouldn't these checks take into account the IFF_LINK2? Moving them inside the next if works as I expected. >How-To-Repeat: >Fix: >Release-Note: >Audit-Trail: >Unformatted:
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200412151822.iBFIM0c9000795>