From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Thu May 6 15:42:47 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C27E16A4CF; Thu, 6 May 2004 15:42:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rwcrmhc13.comcast.net (rwcrmhc13.comcast.net [204.127.198.39]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B578143D49; Thu, 6 May 2004 15:42:46 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from julian@elischer.org) Received: from interjet.elischer.org ([24.7.73.28]) by comcast.net (rwcrmhc13) with ESMTP id <20040506224245015007ndl1e>; Thu, 6 May 2004 22:42:46 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.elischer.org [127.0.0.1]) by InterJet.elischer.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA85900; Thu, 6 May 2004 15:42:44 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 6 May 2004 15:42:43 -0700 (PDT) From: Julian Elischer To: "David W. Chapman Jr." In-Reply-To: <20040506223545.GA61873@minubian.inethouston.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org cc: Andre Oppermann Subject: Re: Default behaviour of IP Options processing X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 May 2004 22:42:47 -0000 On Thu, 6 May 2004, David W. Chapman Jr. wrote: > > We are using RR option all the time to track down routing asymmetry > > and traceroute is not an option, ping -R is very useful in that cases. > > We all know that ipfw (and I am sure all other *pf*) is able to > > process ip opts quite well and personally see no point in this > > sysctls. I fail to see a documentation update (inet.4 ?) as well. > > > > It is not clear for me why you ever ask for opinions after commit not > > before. Strick "nay" if you care :-) > > He hasn't changed the default yet. But I think for the select few > who actually use such tcp options, they can enable it. Most of the > users however will not need this. I think the point that is trying > to be made is that they want the default installation to be more > secure and those who need these features can simply turn them on. what security problem are you expecting? > > -- > David W. Chapman Jr. > dwcjr@inethouston.net Raintree Network Services, Inc. > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >