From owner-freebsd-hackers  Tue Aug 22 12:19:48 1995
Return-Path: hackers-owner
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
          by freefall.FreeBSD.org (8.6.11/8.6.6) id MAA11550
          for hackers-outgoing; Tue, 22 Aug 1995 12:19:48 -0700
Received: from palmer.demon.co.uk (palmer.demon.co.uk [158.152.50.150])
          by freefall.FreeBSD.org (8.6.11/8.6.6) with ESMTP id MAA11541
          for <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>; Tue, 22 Aug 1995 12:19:36 -0700
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	  by palmer.demon.co.uk (8.6.11/8.6.11) with SMTP id UAA08298
	  ; Tue, 22 Aug 1995 20:17:00 +0100
X-Message: This is a dial-up site. Quick responses to e-mails should
           not be relied upon. Thanks!
To: Guido van Rooij <guido@gvr.win.tue.nl>
cc: Warner Losh <imp@village.org>, peter@haywire.dialix.com,
        freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: IPFW and SCREEND 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 22 Aug 1995 21:03:49 +0200."
             <199508221903.VAA00693@gvr.win.tue.nl> 
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 1995 20:16:58 +0100
Message-ID: <8296.809119018@palmer.demon.co.uk>
From: Gary Palmer <gary@palmer.demon.co.uk>
Sender: hackers-owner@freebsd.org
Precedence: bulk

In message <199508221903.VAA00693@gvr.win.tue.nl>, Guido van Rooij writes:
>Just throw away *every* fragment that has as its start byte a byte in
>the TCP/IP header. (so smaller then 40)

That'd be my opinion as well. Is there any DOCUMENTED & VALID reason
for having a fragment start with a byte offset into the header?

Gary