From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Thu May 6 15:29:12 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 404E916A4D0; Thu, 6 May 2004 15:29:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from relay.macomnet.ru (relay.macomnet.ru [195.128.64.10]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2017E43D49; Thu, 6 May 2004 15:29:10 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from maxim@macomnet.ru) Received: from mp3 (x4neikl8@mp3files.int.ru [195.128.64.20]) by relay.macomnet.ru (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i46MT8u513534973; Fri, 7 May 2004 02:29:08 +0400 (MSD) Date: Fri, 7 May 2004 02:29:08 +0400 (MSD) From: Maxim Konovalov To: Andre Oppermann In-Reply-To: <409A8EF3.5825EF0C@freebsd.org> Message-ID: <20040507020422.D94207@mp3files.int.ru> References: <200405061846.i46Ik3Jc060969@repoman.freebsd.org> <409A8EF3.5825EF0C@freebsd.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Default behaviour of IP Options processing X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 May 2004 22:29:12 -0000 On Thu, 6 May 2004, 21:16+0200, Andre Oppermann wrote: > I have just committed the attached change to ip_input() to control the > behaviour of IP Options processing. The default is the unchanged > current behaviour. > > However I want to propose to change the default from processing options > to ignoring options (or even stronger to reject them). > > The rationale is as follows. IP Options do not have any legitimate use > in todays Internet at all. For a long time now we have disabled source > routing. The remaining IP Options are RR (record route) and TS (time > stamp) which are both useless. For finding out which path a packet takes > we use traceroute instead of RR. Besides that RR is limited to the space > in the IP Options field and can possibly record only a few hops (9 IIRC). > Time stamp is useless for the same reason and since it doesn't have a > fixed and synchronized timebase it is even more so useless. > > Opinions? Discussion? Yes/Nay? We are using RR option all the time to track down routing asymmetry and traceroute is not an option, ping -R is very useful in that cases. We all know that ipfw (and I am sure all other *pf*) is able to process ip opts quite well and personally see no point in this sysctls. I fail to see a documentation update (inet.4 ?) as well. It is not clear for me why you ever ask for opinions after commit not before. Strick "nay" if you care :-) -- Maxim Konovalov