Date: Thu, 29 Feb 1996 11:14:43 -0800 From: Paul Traina <pst@shockwave.com> To: Paul Richards <p.richards@elsevier.co.uk> Cc: olah@cs.utwente.nl, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Processing ICMP packets (was: -stable hangs at boot (fwd)) Message-ID: <199602291914.LAA01108@precipice.shockwave.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 29 Feb 1996 18:59:15 GMT." <199602291859.SAA17390@tees>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
From: Paul Richards <p.richards@elsevier.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Processing ICMP packets (was: -stable hangs at boot (fwd))
Trouble is, if you're a paranoid firewall maintainer, like most are (and shou
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.
(a) this belongs on security, not current
(b) if someone doesn't LIKE the standard, they have the source code
(c) one could debate whether the IETF made the correct choice or not until the
cows come home. that's not the issue here. the issue is how we respond
to one of these messages. we should treat them as an unreachable whether
we like it or not, because it is an unreachable.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199602291914.LAA01108>