ipstealth question.

[Joerg Pernfuss]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

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.

	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!