Date: Sun, 6 Jul 1997 15:39:44 -0700 (PDT) From: nsayer@quack.kfu.com To: fenner@FreeBSD.ORG (Bill Fenner) Cc: joerg@FreeBSD.ORG, jkh@FreeBSD.ORG, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: kern/3446 Message-ID: <199707062239.PAA26655@quack.kfu.com> In-Reply-To: <199707061943.MAA03503@hub.freebsd.org> from "Bill Fenner" at Jul 6, 97 12:43:16 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Bill Fenner writes: > Synopsis: IPFIREWALL reject returns port unreachable, not host > State-Changed-From-To: open-closed > State-Changed-By: fenner > State-Changed-When: Sun Jul 6 12:42:34 PDT 1997 > State-Changed-Why: > Turns out this is yet another duplicate, for kern/3452. > I missed that one because it's closed. I don't know how so many duplicates got made. I believe I sent this in a total of twice. I must protest in the strongest possible terms the closure without action of this PR. The language given in the closure of 3452 suggests that the PR should be dismissed because FreeBSD is acting correctly according to the RFCs. That is not the issue here. The issue here is that behavior that is correct according to the RFC breaks what is perhaps the most populous unix implementation that the world has ever known. I feel that that is worth at _least_ of a sysctl variable (as exists for TCP extensions, for exmaple), if not an outright substitution of behavior that actually works for behavior that is theoretically correct. Do we live and work in the real world or not?! -- Nick Sayer http://www.kfu.com/~nsayer/ | nsayer [at] quack [dot] kfu [dot] com | AMD UNSOLICITED BULK EMAIL IS UNACCEPTABLE | Inside AND WILL BE CONSIDERED AS HARASSMENT |
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199707062239.PAA26655>