From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Feb 10 10:27:36 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09FDE16A4CF for ; Thu, 10 Feb 2005 10:27:36 +0000 (GMT) Received: from c00l3r.networx.ch (c00l3r.networx.ch [62.48.2.2]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D125B43D1D for ; Thu, 10 Feb 2005 10:27:34 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from oppermann@networx.ch) Received: (qmail 28249 invoked from network); 10 Feb 2005 10:05:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO networx.ch) ([62.48.0.53]) (envelope-sender ) by c00l3r.networx.ch (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 10 Feb 2005 10:05:57 -0000 Message-ID: <420B3717.D03BA3EA@networx.ch> Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 11:27:35 +0100 From: Andre Oppermann X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.8 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Gleb Smirnoff References: <20050209170802.GA39472@lcs.mit.edu> <420A4957.15E0D656@networx.ch> <20050209185828.GD39472@lcs.mit.edu> <20050209203534.GA41287@lcs.mit.edu> <420A7712.45001B85@networx.ch> <20050210101932.GB21066@cell.sick.ru> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org cc: "David G. Andersen" Subject: Re: Kern/73129 and 5.3-STABLE X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 10:27:36 -0000 Gleb Smirnoff wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 09, 2005 at 09:48:18PM +0100, Andre Oppermann wrote: > A> The problem is with locally generated packets which go the wrong way. > A> This gets nasty when the box has to generate some path MTU discovery > A> ICMP message and such. What I implemented is the correct thing to do > A> and prevents foot-shooting. On the other hand it prevents people from > A> forwarding local ports and such. Both sides of the coin have merit > A> and there is no easy deciding between them or obvious right or wrong > A> choice. > > If it will fix said PR but break forwarding of local ports, then this is > not acceptable. In this case we will have another PRs in short period. I didn't say that, did I? > All functionality in ipfw fwd must remain present. Yes, we get back there. -- Andre