From owner-freebsd-current  Thu Feb 29 12:35:25 1996
Return-Path: owner-current
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id MAA05442
          for current-outgoing; Thu, 29 Feb 1996 12:35:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from precipice.shockwave.com (precipice.shockwave.com [171.69.108.33])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with ESMTP id MAA05437
          for <current@FreeBSD.ORG>; Thu, 29 Feb 1996 12:35:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost.shockwave.com (localhost.shockwave.com [127.0.0.1]) by precipice.shockwave.com (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id LAA01108; Thu, 29 Feb 1996 11:14:44 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <199602291914.LAA01108@precipice.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)) 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 29 Feb 1996 18:59:15 GMT."
             <199602291859.SAA17390@tees> 
Date: Thu, 29 Feb 1996 11:14:43 -0800
From: Paul Traina <pst@shockwave.com>
Sender: owner-current@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk


  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.