From: Michael Ulmer
Date: Tue, 16 May 2017 15:37:39 +
> Blast from the past. 10 years back Wei Dong submitted the patch found
> (amongst several places) here:
> http://lists.openwall.net/netdev/2007/01/30/20
>
> Problem:
> I have a firewall rule that DNATs ipv6 traffic from a destination ad
Blast from the past. 10 years back Wei Dong submitted the patch found (amongst
several places) here:
http://lists.openwall.net/netdev/2007/01/30/20
Problem:
I have a firewall rule that DNATs ipv6 traffic from a destination address to
::1. The route lookup gives me the Main table & forwards that
From: YOSHIFUJI Hideaki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 14:42:50 +0900 (JST)
> [IPV6] ROUTE: Do not route packets to link-local address on other device.
>
> With help from Wei Dong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.
>
> Signed-off-by: YOSHIFUJI Hideaki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Applied, thank you.
-
To
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (at Wed, 21 Feb 2007 23:51:45 -0500), weidong
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> says:
> Thanks for your patch. I think maybe we checking oif first is better,
> and WARN_ON in function rt6_score_route().
Please remove WARN_ON. Otherwise, I'm fine with it.
--yoshfuji
-
To
Hello, Mr yoshfuji
Thanks for your patch. I think maybe we checking oif first is better,
and WARN_ON in function rt6_score_route().
The following is my patch
Signed-off-by: Wei Dong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
diff -ruN old/net/ipv6/route.c new/net/ipv6/route.c
--- old/net/ipv6/route.c200
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (at Wed, 21 Feb 2007 09:57:12 -0500), weidong
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> says:
> The following is the figure.
:
> Host eth0: fe80::200:ff:fe00:100
> Router eth0: fe80::20c:29ff:fe24:fa0a
> Router eth1: fe80::20c:29ff:fe24:fa14
Other network
|
| eth1
++--
Hello, Mr yoshfuji:
Thanks for your reply.
The following is the figure.
||
||
| Router |
|||---|
| |--|
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (at Tue, 30 Jan 2007 16:55:12 +0900), "Wei Dong"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> says:
> Hello, Mr yoshfuji
> Take ping6 for example. Asumming there is a router which has 2 NICs.
> eth0 on router has ipv6 addr fe80::20c:29ff:fe24:fa0a, eth1 on router has
> ipv6 addr fe80:
Hello, Mr yoshfuji
Take ping6 for example. Asumming there is a router which has 2 NICs.
eth0 on router has ipv6 addr fe80::20c:29ff:fe24:fa0a, eth1 on router has
ipv6 addr fe80::20c:29ff:fe24:fa14. Also there is a host connected to
router's eth0, and the host's ipv6 addr is fe80::200:ff:fe00
Hello.
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (at Wed, 21 Feb 2007 02:24:26 -0500), weidong
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> says:
> eth0: fe80::20c:29ff:fe24:fa0a
> | eth1: fe80::20c:29ff:fe24:fa14
> | |
> ---
Hi, all
When I tested linux-2.6.19.2, and found maybe there're some packet
routing bugs in linux kernel. My test topology is shown as the
following:
eth0: fe80::20c:29ff:fe24:fa0a
| eth1: fe80::20c:29ff:fe24:fa14
|
11 matches
Mail list logo
