Date: Tue, 20 Aug 1996 11:27:04 +1000 (EST) From: "Daniel O'Callaghan" <danny@panda.hilink.com.au> To: michael butler <imb@scgt.oz.au> Cc: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Which fragments to discard (was Re: ipfw vs ipfilter) Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.91.960820112455.15538B-100000@panda.hilink.com.au> In-Reply-To: <199608191902.FAA10601@asstdc.scgt.oz.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 20 Aug 1996, michael butler wrote: > > Speaking of which, what follows slid right past my border router :-( This > evening's (-stable + ipfw) log included .. > > Deny TCP <somehost>:24940 202.14.234.65:26735 Fragment = 34 > Deny TCP <somehost>:30569 202.14.234.65:25451 Fragment = 68 > Deny TCP <somehost>:31008 202.14.234.65:29807 Fragment = 102 > Deny TCP <somehost>:24940 202.14.234.65:26735 Fragment = 34 > Deny TCP <somehost>:30569 202.14.234.65:25451 Fragment = 68 > Deny TCP <somehost>:31008 202.14.234.65:29807 Fragment = 102 Hmm, Aren't they the kind of fragment offsets you would see from someone on a slip link with an MTU of 296? 34*8=272. Add 20 for IP and you get 292. Seems kina harsh to me to refuse to talk to the handicapped. Danny
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.91.960820112455.15538B-100000>