On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 17:58:59 -0500 (CDT), Jeremy C. Reed wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Apr 2007, Charlie Allom wrote:
> 
>> I am looking for the reasoning behind *not* importing pfsync into 
>> NetBSD..
>> 
> The http://www.netbsd.org/Documentation/network/pf.html webpage (and [1]) 
> says: "pfsync(4) is not supported (due to protocol number assignment 
> issues). This will hopefully be solved in a future release."
> 
> I don't know when that protocol number assignment issue will be resolved.
> 
> Some details about this is documented in the OpenBSD lyrics page at 
> http://www.openbsd.org/lyrics.html#35 (search for "request was denied").
> 
> OpenBSD and FreeBSD use (for /etc/protocols):
> 
> pfsync  240     PFSYNC          # PF Synchronization
> 
> which is apparently in the unassigned range.
> 
> I recall CARP had same issue, but that got committed. NetBSD's 
> /etc/services has:
> 
> carp    112     CARP    vrrp    # Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol

Googling through the mailing lists and CVS checkins, there is no clear 
word on why this is. I'm glad there now is. I am frustrated by it - I 
thought perhaps someone had decided that using an 'illegally assigned' 
IP # was ok, but an unassigned was not.

> Can you port over the OpenBSD pfsync code so we can test your patches? 
> (Also see FreeBSD's pfsync code so you can see their ifdefs.)

I'd love to.. :) but I'm not your man.

> 
>   Jeremy C. Reed
> 
> [1]
> <shameless plug> 
> http://www.amazon.com/OpenBSD-PF-Packet-Filter-Book/dp/0979034205
> </shameless plug>
<shamelessly left in/>
-- 
 hail eris
 http://rubberduck.com/