https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=233283
--- Comment #13 from Conrad Meyer ---
(In reply to Andrey V. Elsukov from comment #7)
Isn't this patch a bit of a kludge? The existing check for the entry in our L2
entry cache should be sufficient — why don't we populate LLE cache with on
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=233283
jin...@wide.ad.jp changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jin...@wide.ad.jp
--- Comment #
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=233283
--- Comment #11 from peos42 ---
(In reply to Conrad Meyer from comment #8)
RFC 4861 say:
--snip--
If the source address of the packet prompting the solicitation is the
same as one of the addresses assigned to the outgoing interface
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=233283
--- Comment #10 from Conrad Meyer ---
Further (§8.3, Host Specification):
A host receiving a valid redirect SHOULD update its Destination Cache
accordingly so that subsequent traffic goes to the specified target.
...
If the Target
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=233283
--- Comment #9 from Conrad Meyer ---
(In reply to peos42 from comment #6)
Maybe this part?
Router Advertisements contain a list of prefixes used for on-link
determination and/or autonomous address configuration; flags
associated w
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=233283
--- Comment #8 from Conrad Meyer ---
(In reply to peos42 from comment #6)
Could they be more specific in how they think BSD is non-compliant with that
RFC? It's a large document and the critique is not specific.
--
You are receiving this
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=230498
--- Comment #11 from Franck Rousseau ---
Sure, I did the test in 12 as I just wrote, it was just to compare, since it
did not work.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=230498
--- Comment #10 from Andrey V. Elsukov ---
(In reply to Franck Rousseau from comment #9)
> Thanks for the tentative fix, I have just tested on 11.2 and 12-RC1 kernels.
> I have adapted to 11.2 by removing the NET_EPOCH_* macros. The behavio
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=230498
--- Comment #9 from Franck Rousseau ---
Thanks for the tentative fix, I have just tested on 11.2 and 12-RC1 kernels. I
have adapted to 11.2 by removing the NET_EPOCH_* macros. The behavior changes,
there is no more crash, but it looks like
Hi,
I'm poking around dhclient.conf to see if I can get dnscrypt-proxy to co-exist
with captive portals. I've set an alias of 127.0.0.2 to interface lo0 then set
dnscrypt-proxy to run on the address. Then I've added the following lines to
dhclient.conf:
```
# /etc/dhclient.conf
# dnscrypt-pro
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=233283
--- Comment #7 from Andrey V. Elsukov ---
Created attachment 199377
--> https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=199377&action=edit
Proposed patch
I just tried to patch, and it seems with this patch I can add on-link route to
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=230498
Andrey V. Elsukov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #199345|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=233283
--- Comment #6 from peos42 ---
Maybe there is a reason why DragonflyBSD fixed it.
The cloud provider in the same support case I started this thread with said:
--snip--
Additionally, if BSD followed RFC compliance for neighbour table disc
13 matches
Mail list logo
