Re: ipstealth question.
- From: Joerg Pernfuss <elessar@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2006 13:18:38 +0200
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, 24 Sep 2006 14:06:49 +0300
Anton - Valqk <valqk@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi group,
I was wondering is option
options IPSTEALTH
not in the GENERIC on purpose?
Without knowing the exact number, I am sure not decrementing the
TTL violates at least one RFC. Imagine some datacenter with lots
of FreeBSD installations and IPSTEALTH part of GENERIC.
Ideally they do their routing via FreeBSD/netgraph too.
Packets won't die, especially if they have a loop somewhere.
Joerg
- --
| /"\ ASCII ribbon | GnuPG Key ID | e86d b753 3deb e749 6c3a |
| \ / campaign against | 0xbbcaad24 | 5706 1f7d 6cfd bbca ad24 |
| X HTML in email | .the next sentence is true. |
| / \ and news | .the previous sentence was a lie. |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (FreeBSD)
iD8DBQFFFmmOH31s/bvKrSQRAoPAAJ4wod2pT6Irr8AzhF7M4LRaXJZ7TwCdGwQi
y0kNNpGp0xG96o11YxfE2a8=
=MXk6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
!DSPAM:45166994563707906521308!
_______________________________________________
freebsd-stable@xxxxxxxxxxx mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxx"
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: ipstealth question.
- From: Anton - Valqk
- Re: ipstealth question.
- References:
- ipstealth question.
- From: Anton - Valqk
- ipstealth question.
- Prev by Date: ipstealth question.
- Next by Date: Re: ipstealth question.
- Previous by thread: ipstealth question.
- Next by thread: Re: ipstealth question.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
