From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Thu May  6 17:03:39 2004
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
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 5EA3116A4CF; Thu,  6 May 2004 17:03:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rwcrmhc13.comcast.net (rwcrmhc13.comcast.net [204.127.198.39])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 40BFF43D3F; Thu,  6 May 2004 17:03:39 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from julian@elischer.org)
Received: from interjet.elischer.org ([24.7.73.28])
          by comcast.net (rwcrmhc13) with ESMTP
          id <20040507000338015007kct4e>; Fri, 7 May 2004 00:03:38 +0000
Received: from localhost (localhost.elischer.org [127.0.0.1])
	by InterJet.elischer.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA86779;
	Thu, 6 May 2004 17:03:37 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 6 May 2004 17:03:35 -0700 (PDT)
From: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org>
To: Sam Leffler <sam@errno.com>
In-Reply-To: <200405061653.36981.sam@errno.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0405061702000.82978-100000@InterJet.elischer.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
cc: Andre Oppermann <andre@freebsd.org>
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
	<freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 07 May 2004 00:03:39 -0000



On Thu, 6 May 2004, Sam Leffler wrote:

> 
> For fine-grained selection packet filtering is the better solution.  This is a 
> simple, much lighterweight, mechanism that doesn't require touching every 
> packet.

I would only do the tests if the packet HAD an ip option..

either way I'm not going to scream about it.. 
just my thoughts on the matter..