From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG  Thu May  6 16:54:46 2004
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG>
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 7FBAE16A4CE; Thu,  6 May 2004 16:54:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ebb.errno.com (ebb.errno.com [66.127.85.87])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 0B45C43D1D; Thu,  6 May 2004 16:54:46 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from sam@errno.com)
Received: from [66.127.85.91] ([66.127.85.91])
	(authenticated bits=0)
	by ebb.errno.com (8.12.9/8.12.6) with ESMTP id i46NsWWR001140
	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NO);
	Thu, 6 May 2004 16:54:32 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from sam@errno.com)
From: Sam Leffler <sam@errno.com>
Organization: Errno Consulting
To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
Date: Thu, 6 May 2004 16:53:36 -0700
User-Agent: KMail/1.6.1
References: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0405061557410.82978-100000@InterJet.elischer.org>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0405061557410.82978-100000@InterJet.elischer.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <200405061653.36981.sam@errno.com>
cc: "David W. Chapman Jr." <dwcjr@inethouston.net>
cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
cc: Andre Oppermann <andre@freebsd.org>
cc: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.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 <freebsd-net.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net>,
	<mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-net>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-net@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net>,
	<mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 May 2004 23:54:46 -0000

On Thursday 06 May 2004 04:06 pm, Julian Elischer wrote:
> On Thu, 6 May 2004, David W. Chapman Jr. wrote:
> > > You mean ip options not tcp, right?  I do not understant why we
> > > invent a new mechanism if we already have one.  Put an example in
> > > /etc/rc.firewall.
> >
> > Yes, I stand corrected, ip option it is :)
> >
> > > You mean "more obscure", right?  Where net.inet.ip.process_options
> > > documented?  How does it operate with f.e. IPSTEALTH?
> >
> > I definitely agree it should be documented, but that's just a minor
> > detail which can be easily taken care of.
>
> I know these are "options" but what does the standards say about not
> supporting them.. ? (I have seen non optional options before :-)
>
> also I dislike the all-or-nothing mechanism
> I would rather see:
> net.inet.ip.options.RR: 1
> net.inet.ip.options.TS: 0
> net.inet.ip.options.SECURITY 0
> net.inet.ip.options.LSRR: 0
> net.inet.ip.options.SATID: 0
> net.inet.ip.options.SSRR: 0
> net.inet.ip.options.RA: 0
>
> where options we DON'T support exist and are stuck at 0.
>
> or maybe even:
> net.inet.ip.options.RecordRoute: 1
> net.inet.ip.options.TimeStamp: 0
> etc.
>
> if they are usually turned off then the test would only be done if that
> option exists and it would still be faster that actually doing the
> option.

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

	Sam