[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: npf bug(?)
On Apr 3, 7:49am, 6bone%6bone.informatik.uni-leipzig.de@localhost (6bone%6bone.informatik.uni-leipzig.de@localhost) wrote:
-- Subject: Re: npf bug(?)
| On Sun, 2 Apr 2017, Christos Zoulas wrote:
| > I am trying to understand the use case here:
| > 1. you want to have V4 DNS and 6to4 service that can generate V4 fragments
| > 2. you want V4 fragments dropped.
| > 3. you can't put V4 rules in your firewall to restrict traffic to only
| > those services.
| > Is that correct?
| That is not completely right. I want to filter IPv6 with npf. IPv4 should
| not be filtered. After the activation of npf the statistics shows:
| 1296 fragments
| 1104 reassembled
| 7160 failed reassembly
| Since IPv6 is no longer reassambling, it must be IPv4 packets. I want to
| make sure that the reassembly errors do not lead to packet losses,
| especially at 6to4.
I understand now. You want the V4 packets to be left alone, and processed
by the V4 regular stack. I will look into it.
Main Index |
Thread Index |