misc/141032: misleading documentation for rtadvd.conf's raflags setting

[Viktor Štujber]

>Number:         141032
>Category:       misc
>Synopsis:       misleading documentation for rtadvd.conf's raflags setting
>Confidential:   no
>Severity:       non-critical
>Priority:       low
>Responsible:    freebsd-bugs
>State:          open
>Quarter:        
>Keywords:       
>Date-Required:
>Class:          doc-bug
>Submitter-Id:   current-users
>Arrival-Date:   Mon Nov 30 17:20:01 UTC 2009
>Closed-Date:
>Last-Modified:
>Originator:     Viktor Štujber
>Release:        8.0
>Organization:
>Environment:
FreeBSD poring.netvor.sk 8.0-STABLE FreeBSD 8.0-STABLE #1: Fri Nov 27 15:12:20 CET 2009     umage at poring.netvor.sk:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/PORING  i386

>Description:
The documentation for rtadvd.conf (ipv6 router advertisement daemon) contains a section on 'raflags'. This setting controls a bitfield in the RA packet.

The doc explains all of the bits, and to each one it assigns a letter and a hexadecimal value, 0x??.

However, this is very misleading, because as it turns out, the code parsing this config file does not understand hexadecimal numbers.

This works:
:raflags#64:
:raflags="o":

This doesn't work:
:raflags#0x40:

I am not familiar with the syntax, and didn't feel like trying all of the possible variations of #,=,o and 0x40, so I'm only listing the ones above.

>How-To-Repeat:
In my case, I just needed to set the bit 0x40. So I took the example, which says raflags#0, and used

fxp0:\
    :raflags#0x40:

>Fix:
I suggest either adding support for hexadecimal numbers to the parser (a code change), or improving/amending the documentation to make it more clear. It would also be useful if the example used a value more complex than '0'.

>Release-Note:
>Audit-Trail:
>Unformatted: