From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Thu May 6 12:47:28 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF5FD16A4CF for ; Thu, 6 May 2004 12:47:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailtoaster1.pipeline.ch (mailtoaster1.pipeline.ch [62.48.0.70]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC2FC43D2F for ; Thu, 6 May 2004 12:47:27 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from andre@freebsd.org) Received: (qmail 77458 invoked from network); 6 May 2004 19:47:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO freebsd.org) ([62.48.0.53]) (envelope-sender ) by mailtoaster1.pipeline.ch (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 6 May 2004 19:47:27 -0000 Message-ID: <409A964E.2FE5F40E@freebsd.org> Date: Thu, 06 May 2004 21:47:26 +0200 From: Andre Oppermann X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.8 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Julian Elischer References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Default behaviour of IP Options processing X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 May 2004 19:47:29 -0000 Julian Elischer wrote: > > On Thu, 6 May 2004, Andre Oppermann wrote: > > > I have just committed the attached change to ip_input() to control the > > behaviour of IP Options processing. The default is the unchanged > > current behaviour. > [...] > > routing. The remaining IP Options are RR (record route) and TS (time > > stamp) which are both useless. For finding out which path a packet takes > > we use traceroute instead of RR. Besides that RR is limited to the space > > in the IP Options field and can possibly record only a few hops (9 IIRC). > > Time stamp is useless for the same reason and since it doesn't have a > > fixed and synchronized timebase it is even more so useless. > > > > Opinions? Discussion? Yes/Nay? > > I use RR all the time. > it allows you to record the reverse path, (up to the size limitation). Which won't get you far these days... ;-) > what about inet6 ? do you plan on doing things there? > There are more options defined there.. As far as I am aware IPv6 packets do not have any option space in the packet header. You have header stacking there though which has its own evil implications... -- Andre