Page MenuHomeFreeBSD

pf: Remove partial RFC2675 support
ClosedPublic

Authored by kp on Jul 27 2019, 1:32 PM.
Tags
None
Referenced Files
F132396130: D21086.diff
Thu, Oct 16, 1:48 PM
Unknown Object (File)
Mon, Oct 13, 3:38 AM
Unknown Object (File)
Wed, Oct 8, 11:49 PM
Unknown Object (File)
Wed, Oct 8, 3:35 AM
Unknown Object (File)
Sat, Sep 20, 9:33 AM
Unknown Object (File)
Sep 15 2025, 9:41 PM
Unknown Object (File)
Sep 10 2025, 2:53 PM
Unknown Object (File)
Aug 18 2025, 8:44 PM
Subscribers

Details

Reviewers
thj
Group Reviewers
network
Commits
rS350414: pf: Remove partial RFC2675 support
Summary

Remove our (very partial) support for RFC2675 Jumbograms. They're not
used, not actually supported and not a good idea.

Diff Detail

Repository
rS FreeBSD src repository - subversion
Lint
Lint Not Applicable
Unit
Tests Not Applicable

Event Timeline

kp set the repository for this revision to rS FreeBSD src repository - subversion.
sys/netpfil/pf/pf_norm.c
1237 ↗(On Diff #60194)

if we don't support jumbo, shouldn't we just drop any packet with the jumbo option? i.e.

case IP6OPT_JUMP: goto drop

and then we can remove all this handling?

Remove more bits, as suggested by thj

kp marked an inline comment as done.Jul 28 2019, 7:45 PM
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.Jul 28 2019, 8:01 PM

Does this mean that you concluded in the IETF mailing list to drop this support?

This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes.
In D21086#457948, @ae wrote:

Does this mean that you concluded in the IETF mailing list to drop this support?

I listened in to the relevant session in the IETF meeting, and while I don't know if there was a firm conclusion even those opposing moving RFC2675 to historic status were very clear that its implementation is optional, and it's entirely okay to not support it.