From owner-freebsd-mobile@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Apr 16 11:52:11 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-mobile@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 673FF37B401 for ; Wed, 16 Apr 2003 11:52:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from wall.polstra.com (wall-gw.polstra.com [206.213.73.130]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0763C43F93 for ; Wed, 16 Apr 2003 11:52:03 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jdp@polstra.com) Received: from strings.polstra.com (strings.polstra.com [206.213.73.20]) by wall.polstra.com (8.12.3p2/8.12.3) with ESMTP id h3GIprdt023455 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO); Wed, 16 Apr 2003 11:51:53 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jdp@strings.polstra.com) Received: (from jdp@localhost) by strings.polstra.com (8.12.6/8.12.6/Submit) id h3GIprKO080872; Wed, 16 Apr 2003 11:51:53 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jdp) Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 11:51:53 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <200304161851.h3GIprKO080872@strings.polstra.com> To: mobile@freebsd.org From: John Polstra In-Reply-To: <20030416114002.K46401-100000@moo.sysabend.org> References: <20030416114002.K46401-100000@moo.sysabend.org> Organization: Polstra & Co., Seattle, WA Subject: Re: "broadcast ping" message X-BeenThere: freebsd-mobile@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile computing with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 18:52:11 -0000 In article <20030416114002.K46401-100000@moo.sysabend.org>, Jamie Bowden wrote: > > > Then submit a draft for a superceding RFC, don't ignore it just because > > > it's inconvenient. That's a Microsoft attitude. > > Take it up with the NSP folks. I've not written standards stuff, and this > > is now a > > Best Current Practices. I've had my share of DDoS's from broadcast pings. > > > > It's NOT JUST ME, it's the ENTIRE ISP Community. > > All the world is not an ISP. Having worked in that industry in the past, > I understand why they do things, but changing the default behaviour to > violate RFCs is not what I consider a good thing. The option to turn it > is great for those who want or need it. > > Using Cisco as an example doesn't bolster your argument, BTW, they've done > their share of boneheaded things in the past as well. > > If the world is a better place for an updated standard, then fix the > standard, don't ignore it. This isn't directed at you personally Larry, > it's just a general rant. Oh, drop it! Security fixes don't wait on standards. You've got a knob to make it do what you want -- so use it. Please stop the whining or at least remove me from the cc list. John -- John Polstra John D. Polstra & Co., Inc. Seattle, Washington USA "Disappointment is a good sign of basic intelligence." -- Chögyam Trungpa