From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Mar 2 22:00:08 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 032361065676; Wed, 2 Mar 2011 22:00:07 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bzeeb-lists@lists.zabbadoz.net) Received: from mail.cksoft.de (mail.cksoft.de [IPv6:2001:4068:10::3]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2D478FC1D; Wed, 2 Mar 2011 22:00:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (amavis.fra.cksoft.de [192.168.74.71]) by mail.cksoft.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0791D41C7A4; Wed, 2 Mar 2011 23:00:07 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at cksoft.de Received: from mail.cksoft.de ([192.168.74.103]) by localhost (amavis.fra.cksoft.de [192.168.74.71]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yiBQUgrOrnDC; Wed, 2 Mar 2011 23:00:06 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail.cksoft.de (Postfix, from userid 66) id 18A5541C7A8; Wed, 2 Mar 2011 23:00:06 +0100 (CET) Received: from maildrop.int.zabbadoz.net (maildrop.int.zabbadoz.net [10.111.66.10]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.int.zabbadoz.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA94F4448FC; Wed, 2 Mar 2011 22:00:01 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2011 22:00:01 +0000 (UTC) From: "Bjoern A. Zeeb" X-X-Sender: bz@maildrop.int.zabbadoz.net To: Giorgos Keramidas In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20110302215921.N13400@maildrop.int.zabbadoz.net> References: <4D411CC6.1090202@gont.com.ar> <4D431258.8040704@FreeBSD.org> X-OpenPGP-Key: 0x14003F198FEFA3E77207EE8D2B58B8F83CCF1842 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Cc: FreeBSD Net , Ivo Vachkov , Doug Barton Subject: Re: Proposed patch for Port Randomization modifications according to RFC6056 X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2011 22:00:08 -0000 On Sat, 5 Feb 2011, Giorgos Keramidas wrote: Hi, > On Fri, 28 Jan 2011 11:00:40 -0800, Doug Barton wrote: >> I haven't reviewed the patch in detail yet but I wanted to first thank >> you for taking on this work, and being so responsive to Fernando's >> request (which I agreed with, and you updated before I even had a >> chance to say so). :) > > Thanks from me too. > >> My one comment so far is on the name of the sysctl's. There are 2 >> problems with sysctl/variable names that use an rfc title. The first is >> that they are not very descriptive to the 99.9% of users who are not >> familiar with that particular doc. The second is more esoteric, but if >> the rfc is subsequently updated or obsoleted we're stuck with either an >> anachronism or updating code (both of which have their potential areas >> of confusion). >> >> So in order to avoid this issue, and make it more consistent with the >> existing: >> >> net.inet.ip.portrange.randomtime >> net.inet.ip.portrange.randomcps >> net.inet.ip.portrange.randomized >> >> How does net.inet.ip.portrange.randomalg sound? I would also suggest >> that the second sysctl be named >> net.inet.ip.portrange.randomalg.alg5_tradeoff so that one could do >> sysctl net.inet.ip.portrange.randomalg' and see both values. But I won't >> quibble on that. :) > > It's a usability issue too, so I'd certainly support renaming the > sysctls to something human-friendly. It's always bad enough to go > through look at a search engine to find out what net.inet.rfc1234 > means. It's worse when RFC 1234 has been obsoleted a few years ago > and now it's called RFC 54321. has anything of that ever happened and led to an updated patch again? /bz -- Bjoern A. Zeeb You have to have visions! Stop bit received. Insert coin for new address family.