Date: Fri, 7 May 2004 02:29:08 +0400 (MSD) From: Maxim Konovalov <maxim@macomnet.ru> To: Andre Oppermann <andre@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Default behaviour of IP Options processing Message-ID: <20040507020422.D94207@mp3files.int.ru> In-Reply-To: <409A8EF3.5825EF0C@freebsd.org> References: <200405061846.i46Ik3Jc060969@repoman.freebsd.org> <409A8EF3.5825EF0C@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 6 May 2004, 21:16+0200, 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. > > However I want to propose to change the default from processing options > to ignoring options (or even stronger to reject them). > > The rationale is as follows. IP Options do not have any legitimate use > in todays Internet at all. For a long time now we have disabled source > 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? 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 :-) -- Maxim Konovalov
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040507020422.D94207>