Proposed patch for Port Randomization modifications according to RFC6056

[Bjoern A. Zeeb]

On Sat, 5 Feb 2011, Giorgos Keramidas wrote:

Hi,

> On Fri, 28 Jan 2011 11:00:40 -0800, Doug Barton <dougb at FreeBSD.org> wrote:
>> I haven't reviewed the patch in detail yet but I wanted to first thank
>> you for taking on this work, and being so responsive to Fernando's
>> request (which I agreed with, and you updated before I even had a
>> chance to say so). :)
>
> Thanks from me too.
>
>> My one comment so far is on the name of the sysctl's. There are 2
>> problems with sysctl/variable names that use an rfc title. The first is
>> that they are not very descriptive to the 99.9% of users who are not
>> familiar with that particular doc. The second is more esoteric, but if
>> the rfc is subsequently updated or obsoleted we're stuck with either an
>> anachronism or updating code (both of which have their potential areas
>> of confusion).
>>
>> So in order to avoid this issue, and make it more consistent with the
>> existing:
>>
>> net.inet.ip.portrange.randomtime
>> net.inet.ip.portrange.randomcps
>> net.inet.ip.portrange.randomized
>>
>> How does net.inet.ip.portrange.randomalg sound? I would also suggest
>> that the second sysctl be named
>> net.inet.ip.portrange.randomalg.alg5_tradeoff so that one could do
>> sysctl net.inet.ip.portrange.randomalg' and see both values. But I won't
>> quibble on that. :)
>
> It's a usability issue too, so I'd certainly support renaming the
> sysctls to something human-friendly.  It's always bad enough to go
> through look at a search engine to find out what net.inet.rfc1234
> means.  It's worse when RFC 1234 has been obsoleted a few years ago
> and now it's called RFC 54321.

has anything of that ever happened and led to an updated patch again?

/bz

-- 
Bjoern A. Zeeb                                 You have to have visions!
          Stop bit received. Insert coin for new address family.