From owner-freebsd-hackers Mon Feb 9 10:16:08 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA16414 for hackers-outgoing; Mon, 9 Feb 1998 10:16:08 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from biggusdiskus.flyingfox.com (biggusdiskus.flyingfox.com [205.162.1.28]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA16295 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 1998 10:15:51 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jas@flyingfox.com) Received: (from jas@localhost) by biggusdiskus.flyingfox.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id KAA18235 for freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org; Mon, 9 Feb 1998 10:17:04 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 9 Feb 1998 10:17:04 -0800 (PST) From: Jim Shankland Message-Id: <199802091817.KAA18235@biggusdiskus.flyingfox.com> To: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: ipfw logs ports for fragments Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Mark Slemko writes: > Reassembly sucks. If you have different parts of the fragment > following different paths, you lose bigtime. This is excessively general. In particular, in any firewall setting (and we were talking about ipfw), it can be considered a misfeature for the network to be designed such that data either transits or bypasses the firewall, unpredictably. Obviously IP routers should not in general perform packet reassembly; firewalls, NAT devices, etc., placed at administrative boundaries toward the perimeter of the network, are a different story. Jim Shankland Flying Fox Computer Systems, Inc. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe hackers" in the body of the message