From owner-freebsd-current Thu Feb 29 11:01:57 1996 Return-Path: owner-current Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id LAA00212 for current-outgoing; Thu, 29 Feb 1996 11:01:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from skiddaw.elsevier.co.uk (skiddaw.elsevier.co.uk [193.131.222.60]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id LAA00194 for ; Thu, 29 Feb 1996 11:01:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from snowdon.elsevier.co.uk (snowdon.elsevier.co.uk [193.131.197.164]) by skiddaw.elsevier.co.uk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id SAA29125 for ; Thu, 29 Feb 1996 18:59:12 GMT Received: from tees by snowdon with SMTP (PP); Thu, 29 Feb 1996 18:57:27 +0000 Received: (from dpr@localhost) by tees (SMI-8.6/8.6.12) id SAA17390; Thu, 29 Feb 1996 18:59:15 GMT Date: Thu, 29 Feb 1996 18:59:15 GMT From: Paul Richards Message-Id: <199602291859.SAA17390@tees> To: olah@cs.utwente.nl, pst@shockwave.com Subject: Re: Processing ICMP packets (was: -stable hangs at boot (fwd)) Cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-MD5: Y4mk3oW/lJtG5AY0P5jcYQ== Sender: owner-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk > > It does have special meaning. Theoretically, you SHOULD be able to say > "if I get 9 (or 10) I cannot reach that net (or host), period." However, > many firewalls generate 9 or 10 (which was obsoleted by 13 for just this > reason). 13 says "don't assume anything other than this connection attempt > was refused for administrative reasons." > > Thanks, > Andras > Trouble is, if you're a paranoid firewall maintainer, like most are (and should be), then you don't want to tell the world that you're a firewall and you're denying access, you want to say, there's no such address as the one you're trying so stop wasting your time.