Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2006 13:18:38 +0200 From: Joerg Pernfuss <elessar@bsdforen.de> To: Anton - Valqk <valqk@lozenetz.org> Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ipstealth question. Message-ID: <20060924131838.23bb9ffc@loki.starkstrom.lan> In-Reply-To: <451666C9.6060902@lozenetz.org> References: <451666C9.6060902@lozenetz.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Sun, 24 Sep 2006 14:06:49 +0300 Anton - Valqk <valqk@lozenetz.org> wrote: > Hi group, > I was wondering is option > > options IPSTEALTH > > not in the GENERIC on purpose? Without knowing the exact number, I am sure not decrementing the TTL violates at least one RFC. Imagine some datacenter with lots of FreeBSD installations and IPSTEALTH part of GENERIC. Ideally they do their routing via FreeBSD/netgraph too. Packets won't die, especially if they have a loop somewhere. Joerg - -- | /"\ ASCII ribbon | GnuPG Key ID | e86d b753 3deb e749 6c3a | | \ / campaign against | 0xbbcaad24 | 5706 1f7d 6cfd bbca ad24 | | X HTML in email | .the next sentence is true. | | / \ and news | .the previous sentence was a lie. | -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFFFmmOH31s/bvKrSQRAoPAAJ4wod2pT6Irr8AzhF7M4LRaXJZ7TwCdGwQi y0kNNpGp0xG96o11YxfE2a8= =MXk6 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- !DSPAM:45166994563707906521308!
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060924131838.23bb9ffc>