From owner-freebsd-bugs  Sun Aug  5  3: 0:12 2001
Delivered-To: freebsd-bugs@hub.freebsd.org
Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [216.136.204.21])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB0C337B401
	for <freebsd-bugs@hub.freebsd.org>; Sun,  5 Aug 2001 03:00:08 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org)
Received: (from gnats@localhost)
	by freefall.freebsd.org (8.11.4/8.11.4) id f75A08t75966;
	Sun, 5 Aug 2001 03:00:08 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from gnats)
Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2001 03:00:08 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <200108051000.f75A08t75966@freefall.freebsd.org>
To: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org
Cc: 
From: Jonathan Chen <jon@FreeBSD.org>
Subject: Re: kern/9791: enhancement for netinet/ip_icmp.c to control ping responses
Reply-To: Jonathan Chen <jon@FreeBSD.org>
Sender: owner-freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <freebsd-bugs.FreeBSD.ORG>
List-Archive: <http://docs.freebsd.org/mail/> (Web Archive)
List-Help: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=help> (List Instructions)
List-Subscribe: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=subscribe%20freebsd-bugs>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=unsubscribe%20freebsd-bugs>
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org

The following reply was made to PR kern/9791; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Jonathan Chen <jon@FreeBSD.org>
To: freebsd-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.org, shipley@dis.org
Cc:  
Subject: Re: kern/9791: enhancement for netinet/ip_icmp.c to control ping responses
Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2001 05:54:20 -0400

 Is there a reason this should be used instead of ipfw/ipf?  It seems 
 frivolous to use this patch in FreeBSD 4/5.  Filtering ping is really a 
 function of the firewall anyway.  Besides, it doesn't give that much extra 
 security.  I propose we just drop this idea and close the PR.

To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-bugs" in the body of the message