From owner-freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org Sun Mar 1 04:05:22 2020 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-bugs@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D110A24C5F2 for ; Sun, 1 Mar 2020 04:05:22 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (unknown [127.0.1.3]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48VV6p4vRlz4H2S for ; Sun, 1 Mar 2020 04:05:22 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) id A82DC24C5F1; Sun, 1 Mar 2020 04:05:22 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: bugs@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7EFB24C5F0 for ; Sun, 1 Mar 2020 04:05:22 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org (mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:3]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org", Issuer "Let's Encrypt Authority X3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 48VV6p3gWLz4H2R for ; Sun, 1 Mar 2020 04:05:22 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org (kenobi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::50:1d]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 72B45259D4 for ; Sun, 1 Mar 2020 04:05:22 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org ([127.0.1.5]) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 02145MSP076093 for ; Sun, 1 Mar 2020 04:05:22 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: (from www@localhost) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id 02145M2C076092 for bugs@FreeBSD.org; Sun, 1 Mar 2020 04:05:22 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) X-Authentication-Warning: kenobi.freebsd.org: www set sender to bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org using -f From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 244514] "reply-to" function in pf breaks RFC 1122 section 3.3.1.1 Local/Remote Decision Date: Sun, 01 Mar 2020 04:05:22 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: AssignedTo X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: Base System X-Bugzilla-Component: kern X-Bugzilla-Version: Unspecified X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: Affects Some People X-Bugzilla-Who: ctminime@yahoo.com X-Bugzilla-Status: Closed X-Bugzilla-Resolution: Works As Intended X-Bugzilla-Priority: --- X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: bugs@FreeBSD.org X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-BeenThere: freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Bug reports List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 01 Mar 2020 04:05:22 -0000 https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D244514 --- Comment #3 from ctminime@yahoo.com --- (In reply to Kristof Provost from comment #2) As far as I can tell, you are wrong about dropping packets violates RFC. I couldn't find anything of the sorts in RFC 793 or RFC 1122. What I did find= , is some commentary in RFC 3360 under "The history of TCP resets". Go ahead and read it yourself. However, if you you can find that in an RFC, I would be interested to read it. I can't think of a single way that making "reply-to" RFC compliant (by defa= ult) would break any setup. It would only fix the couple of use case that it bre= aks.=20 It is my personal opinion that the default behavior of a function should be= RFC compliant. Then it could be up to the administrator if he chooses to violate RFC to accomplish whatever he wants. It could be done like this: "reply-to" sends all traffic, except local subn= et traffic, to the gateway. (FYI, this is how pfSense behaves.) But if an administrator wanted to, for some unfathomable reason, there could be an op= tion like "reply-to absolute" that would be specifically for violating RFC and s= end all traffic to the gateway. Just because this is the way it has worked for a decade+, doesn't mean it is right or should stay that way. --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.=