From owner-freebsd-current Mon Aug 16 18:44:40 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from beach.silcom.com (beach.silcom.com [199.201.128.19]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45F4114E01 for ; Mon, 16 Aug 1999 18:44:34 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from brian@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU) Received: from smarter.than.nu (pm0-49.vpop1.avtel.net [207.71.237.49]) by beach.silcom.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D14730E; Mon, 16 Aug 1999 18:44:41 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 16 Aug 1999 18:44:39 -0700 (PDT) From: "Brian W. Buchanan" X-Sender: brian@smarter.than.nu To: Archie Cobbs Cc: Geoff Rehmet , "'current@freebsd.org'" Subject: Re: Dropping connections without RST In-Reply-To: <199908170133.SAA25256@bubba.whistle.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Mon, 16 Aug 1999, Archie Cobbs wrote: > Geoff Rehmet writes: > > After the discussions regarding the "log_in_vain" > > sysctls, I was thinking about a feature I would > > like to implement: > > > > Instead of sending a RST (for TCP) or Port Unreachable > > (for UDP) where the box is not listening on a socket, > > I would like to implement a sysctl, which disables the > > sending of the RST or the Port unreachable. This is > > behaviour that I have described is displayed. > > > > Can anyone think of any reason why this feature should > > not be implemented? > > I like that idea... net.inet.{tcp,udp}.drop_in_vain ? Why do we need a sysctl knob for this when it can be easily accomplished with IPFW? -- Brian Buchanan brian@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU -------------------------------------------------------------------------- FreeBSD - The Power to Serve! http://www.freebsd.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message