From: Brian Haley <brian.haley@hp.com>
To: Eric Dumazet <dada1@cosmosbay.com>
Cc: nicolas.dichtel@6wind.com, Florian Westphal <fw@strlen.de>,
netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ipv4/ipv6: check hop limit field on input
Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2009 14:55:20 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4A242418.1090804@hp.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4A242161.3010609@cosmosbay.com>
Eric Dumazet wrote:
> Nicolas Dichtel a écrit :
>> Le 01.06.2009 18:19, Florian Westphal a écrit :
>>> Nicolas Dichtel <nicolas.dichtel@dev.6wind.com> wrote:
>>>> when network stack receives a packet, it didn't check value of
>>>> ttl/hop limit
>>>> field. RFC indicates that a router must drop the packet if this field
>>>> is 0.
>>> Whats wrong with the checks in ip(6)_forward?
>> It's on forward, not on input. Router must not process it.
>> For example, if you try to ping (with ttl set to 0) the router, you will
>> receive a reply.
>>
>
> You seem to mix requirements for routers and hosts. ttl processing
> is relevant for a gateway only, not for a host.
>
> (terminology : gateway / host in rfc 792)
>
> I would say : who sent this ttl=0 packet at first ?
>
> ping -t 0 host
> ping: can't set unicast time-to-live: Invalid argument
>
> So Linux is not able to do that, unless using tricks of course, or patching IP_TTL
'ping6 -t 0 host' does work however. The problem I see is that if you ping a system,
if it's a host it will respond, if it's a router it won't - the RFCs don't
explicitly state the host should drop the packet. I don't know if that difference
in behavior is desired. Do we know how any other OSes behave?
-Brian
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-06-01 18:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-06-01 15:13 [PATCH] ipv4/ipv6: check hop limit field on input Nicolas Dichtel
2009-06-01 16:19 ` Florian Westphal
2009-06-01 16:49 ` Nicolas Dichtel
2009-06-01 17:13 ` Florian Westphal
2009-06-02 9:30 ` Nicolas Dichtel
2009-06-01 18:43 ` Eric Dumazet
2009-06-01 18:55 ` Brian Haley [this message]
2009-06-02 1:54 ` John Dykstra
2009-06-02 2:02 ` David Miller
2009-06-02 9:22 ` John Dykstra
2009-06-02 9:32 ` David Miller
2009-06-02 9:35 ` Nicolas Dichtel
2009-06-02 9:30 ` Nicolas Dichtel
2009-06-02 9:30 ` Nicolas Dichtel
2009-06-02 2:04 ` David Miller
2009-06-02 5:31 ` Eric Dumazet
2009-06-02 5:43 ` David Miller
2009-06-02 9:36 ` Nicolas Dichtel
2009-06-02 9:37 ` David Miller
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4A242418.1090804@hp.com \
--to=brian.haley@hp.com \
--cc=dada1@cosmosbay.com \
--cc=fw@strlen.de \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=nicolas.dichtel@6wind.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).