From owner-freebsd-hackers Fri Nov 17 14:29:14 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from fw.wintelcom.net (ns1.wintelcom.net [209.1.153.20]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D46237B4C5 for ; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 14:29:12 -0800 (PST) Received: (from bright@localhost) by fw.wintelcom.net (8.10.0/8.10.0) id eAHMT5222711; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 14:29:05 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 14:29:04 -0800 From: Alfred Perlstein To: Jesper Skriver Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: React to ICMP administratively prohibited ? Message-ID: <20001117142904.T18037@fw.wintelcom.net> References: <20001117211013.C9227@skriver.dk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <20001117211013.C9227@skriver.dk>; from jesper@skriver.dk on Fri, Nov 17, 2000 at 09:10:13PM +0100 Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG * Jesper Skriver [001117 12:11] wrote: [snip] > > This timeout could be avoided if the sending mail server reacted to the > 'ICMP administratively prohibited' they got from our router. [snip] > > $ telnet nemo.dyndns.dk 25 > Trying 193.89.247.125... > telnet: Unable to connect to remote host: No route to host > $ uname -a > Linux xyz.dk 2.0.32 #1 Wed Nov 19 00:46:45 EST 1997 i586 unknown > > Wouldn't it be a idea to implement a similar behaviour in FreeBSD ? Probably not, what if one started a stream of spoofed ICMP lying about the state of the route between the two machines? I have the impression that the Linux box wouldn't be able to connect because of this behavior. -- -Alfred Perlstein - [bright@wintelcom.net|alfred@freebsd.org] "I have the heart of a child; I keep it in a jar on my desk." To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message