From owner-freebsd-bugs Sat Jun 9 16:49:22 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org Received: from bazooka.unixfreak.org (bazooka.unixfreak.org [63.198.170.138]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B1FA37B401 for ; Sat, 9 Jun 2001 16:49:16 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dima@unixfreak.org) Received: from hornet.unixfreak.org (hornet [63.198.170.140]) by bazooka.unixfreak.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDA3F3E0B; Sat, 9 Jun 2001 16:49:15 -0700 (PDT) To: Evil Pete Cc: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: kern/9791: enhancement for netinet/ip_icmp.c to control ping responses In-Reply-To: <200106092357.f59NvZN29052@kizmiaz.dis.org>; from shipley@dis.org on "Sat, 09 Jun 2001 16:57:35 -0700" Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2001 16:49:15 -0700 From: Dima Dorfman Message-Id: <20010609234915.BDA3F3E0B@bazooka.unixfreak.org> Sender: owner-freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Evil Pete writes: > ping 8 sends pings, this patch just changes the way the kernel > responds to pings. While true this can be done in ipfw like the > kernal options net.inet.icmp.bmcastecho and net.inet.tcp.drop_synfin > I think the patch is cleaner/faster Whoops, I should've read that more carefully. Even so, I think this should be brought up on -hackers or -net. And honestly, I don't see why ipfw isn't fast enough. > > >Synopsis: enhancement for netinet/ip_icmp.c to control ping responses > > > >State-Changed-From-To: open->suspended > >State-Changed-By: dd > >State-Changed-When: Sat Jun 9 16:25:33 PDT 2001 > >State-Changed-Why: > >It's probably better to do this in ping(8) rather than the kernel. Regardle > ss > }, > >this change should be discussed prior to being committed. > > > >http://www.FreeBSD.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=9791 > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-bugs" in the body of the message