From owner-freebsd-hackers  Mon Aug 19 19:34:27 1996
Return-Path: owner-hackers
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id TAA06867
          for hackers-outgoing; Mon, 19 Aug 1996 19:34:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from asstdc.scgt.oz.au (asstdc.scgt.oz.au [202.14.234.65])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id TAA06831
          for <hackers@freebsd.org>; Mon, 19 Aug 1996 19:34:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from imb@localhost)
          by asstdc.scgt.oz.au (8.7.5/BSD4.4) id MAA08877
          Tue, 20 Aug 1996 12:33:22 +1000 (EST)
From: michael butler <imb@scgt.oz.au>
Message-Id: <199608200233.MAA08877@asstdc.scgt.oz.au>
Subject: Re: Which fragments to discard (was Re: ipfw vs ipfilter)
To: danny@panda.hilink.com.au (Daniel O'Callaghan)
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 1996 12:33:20 +1000 (EST)
Cc: hackers@freebsd.org
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.91.960820112455.15538B-100000@panda.hilink.com.au> from "Daniel O'Callaghan" at Aug 20, 96 11:27:04 am
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24beta]
Content-Type: text
Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

Daniel O'Callaghan writes:

> 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.

Except that the first fragment contained a different port number, nntp has it
happens, which is disallowed here to all but a few external hosts,

	michael