Bug 29071
| Summary: | relay patch for rwhod | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | Base System | Reporter: | Scott Hazen Mueller <scott> | ||||
| Component: | bin | Assignee: | Ceri Davies <ceri> | ||||
| Status: | Closed FIXED | ||||||
| Severity: | Affects Only Me | ||||||
| Priority: | Normal | ||||||
| Version: | 4.3-RELEASE | ||||||
| Hardware: | Any | ||||||
| OS: | Any | ||||||
| Attachments: |
|
||||||
|
Description
Scott Hazen Mueller
2001-07-19 01:00:02 UTC
> >Number: 29071 > >Category: bin > >Synopsis: relay patch for rwhod I like this idea -- I've thought of doing likewise myself before. However, I'm not sure I like the idea of sending the packet back out with a special X marker. I'd prefer if the target network(s) could be specified: rwhod -r 172.17.10.255 -r 10.0.0.255 etc If rwhod kept a note of the payload it sends out, and simply makes sure it doesn't send the same thing out twice in a row within (say) 15 seconds, it may be better ? This could be implemented fairly easily by just maintaining a list of timestamped outbound packets and expiring them when it notices they're out of date.... -- Brian <brian@freebsd-services.com> <brian@Awfulhak.org> http://www.freebsd-services.com/ <brian@[uk.]FreeBSD.org> Don't _EVER_ lose your sense of humour ! <brian@[uk.]OpenBSD.org> >> >Number: 29071 >> >Category: bin >> >Synopsis: relay patch for rwhod >However, I'm not sure I like the idea of sending the packet back out with a >special X marker. I'd prefer if the target network(s) could be specified: That part of it is inelegant, to say the least. I looked at trying to identify the source address and using that for loop control...however, that's harder than it appears. The send socket is (of course) bound with INADDR_ANY (if anything, the structure is actually bzero'ed), so while we get an address in the received packet, it's moderately hard(*) to correlate it back to our- selves. The Right Thing, of course, is to maintain a list of our interface addresses, and compare all of those against the address in the received packet. (*) Moderately hard here means well beyond my exceedingly rusty C programming skills. > rwhod -r 172.17.10.255 -r 10.0.0.255 etc Assuming connected interfaces, this probably would work. rwhod builds a list of "neighbors" when it starts up, so these -r addresses could just be inserted into the neighbor list... Question, here, though - syntactically, is the intent to relay packets from anywhere to 172.17.10.255 & 10.0.0.255, or packets from 172.17.10.255 & 10.0.0.255 to all interfaces? Probably the former, but just checking. My hack just does all to all... >If rwhod kept a note of the payload it sends out, and simply makes sure it >doesn't send the same thing out twice in a row within (say) 15 seconds, it >may be better ? This could be implemented fairly easily by just maintaining >a list of timestamped outbound packets and expiring them when it notices >they're out of date.... I think looking for it's own interface address(es) as the source would be the cleaner solution, but I'm not 100% confident it's easily implementable. This would be the next best thing. \scott State Changed From-To: open->feedback I think we would need a patch against a recent -current. This patch must also include an updated manpage before it could be committed. The C part should as much as possible conform to style(9). State Changed From-To: feedback->closed Feedback timeout (6 months or more). I will handle any feedback that this closure generates. Responsible Changed From-To: freebsd-bugs->ceri Feedback timeout (6 months or more). I will handle any feedback that this closure generates. |
