From owner-freebsd-hackers  Tue Aug 22 12:25:46 1995
Return-Path: hackers-owner
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
          by freefall.FreeBSD.org (8.6.11/8.6.6) id MAA12128
          for hackers-outgoing; Tue, 22 Aug 1995 12:25:46 -0700
Received: from gvr.win.tue.nl (gvr.win.tue.nl [131.155.210.19])
          by freefall.FreeBSD.org (8.6.11/8.6.6) with ESMTP id MAA12122
          for <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>; Tue, 22 Aug 1995 12:25:35 -0700
Received: by gvr.win.tue.nl (8.6.10/1.53)
    id VAA00855; Tue, 22 Aug 1995 21:23:56 +0200
From: guido@gvr.win.tue.nl (Guido van Rooij)
Message-Id: <199508221923.VAA00855@gvr.win.tue.nl>
Subject: Re: IPFW and SCREEND
To: gary@palmer.demon.co.uk (Gary Palmer)
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 1995 21:23:56 +0200 (MET DST)
Cc: imp@village.org, peter@haywire.dialix.com, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
In-Reply-To: <8296.809119018@palmer.demon.co.uk> from "Gary Palmer" at Aug 22, 95 08:16:58 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 491       
Sender: hackers-owner@freebsd.org
Precedence: bulk

Gary Palmer wrote:
> 
> 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?

Do you care? I think it is valid to happen. I dont think it is 
going to happen during normal traffic.. So I'll just block it.

-Guido