Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 11:22:38 -0600 From: Bill Fenner <fenner@research.att.com> To: jlemon@flugsvamp.com Cc: jesper@skriver.dk, asmodai@wxs.nl, net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: 4.3 issue: new ICMP handling broke date(1) Message-ID: <200103271722.LAA23857@windsor.research.att.com> References: <200103261557.JAA08568@windsor.research.att.com> <20010327124531.O68667@daemon.ninth-circle.org> <20010327131246.A71551@skriver.dk> <20010327101922.N93687@prism.flugsvamp.com> <20010327183646.A75484@skriver.dk> <20010327104826.P93687@prism.flugsvamp.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
I prefer Jesper's other patch (the one that goes back to
code = PRC_UNREACH_PORT). Note that the comment here:
/*
* RFC 1122, Sections 3.2.2.1 and 4.2.3.9.
* Treat subcodes 2,3 as immediate RST
*/
case ICMP_UNREACH_PROTOCOL:
case ICMP_UNREACH_PORT:
code = PRC_UNREACH_ADMIN_PROHIB;
break;
3.2.2.1 says that ICMP errors must be passed to the transport layer,
and 4.2.3.9 is TCP-specific. To me, it's a more general solution to
give the transport layer more specific info (i.e. code = PRC_UNREACH_PORT)
and let it act appropriately (i.e. TCP treats PRC_UNREACH_PORT specially),
especially since TCP and UDP may want to report different things here.
Bill
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200103271722.LAA23857>