elessar at bsdforen.de
Sun Sep 24 04:18:46 PDT 2006
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Sun, 24 Sep 2006 14:06:49 +0300
Anton - Valqk <valqk at lozenetz.org> 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.
| /"\ 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 v220.127.116.11 (FreeBSD)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the freebsd-stable