From owner-freebsd-hackers Tue Sep 19 14:26:24 1995 Return-Path: owner-hackers Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) id OAA00510 for hackers-outgoing; Tue, 19 Sep 1995 14:26:24 -0700 Received: from Glock.COM (root@glock.com [198.82.228.165]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) with ESMTP id OAA00495 for ; Tue, 19 Sep 1995 14:26:20 -0700 Received: (from mmead@localhost) by Glock.COM (8.6.11/8.6.9) id RAA11729; Tue, 19 Sep 1995 17:26:22 -0400 Date: Tue, 19 Sep 1995 17:26:22 -0400 From: "matthew c. mead" Message-Id: <199509192126.RAA11729@Glock.COM> To: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: TTL decrement Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org Precedence: bulk Ok, if you saw my previous message, you know what my network setup looks like. If not, basically I'm on a port of a hub that only wants to see one hardware address, but doesn't mind multiple ip addresses. I'm going to setup a freebsd 2.0.5R box as a proxy arp, ip forwarding machine, with two to three machines hanging off it that it proxy arps and forwards to, and on its other interface it will be connected to the hub mentioned above. I don't want this machine to show up to nosy people who traceroute to my internal machines and such, so what I was wondering is if given this limited network situation, and considering I can guarantee it won't change, is it ok to go ahead and remove the TTL decrement on packets it forwards across the two interfaces? Anyone know of any problems this might cause? -matt -- Matthew C. Mead mmead@Glock.COM | Network Administration and Software Development http://www.Glock.COM/~mmead/ | Consulting: BizNet Technologies -> mmead@bnt.com