Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2017 09:52:06 -0500 From: Michael Sierchio <kudzu@tenebras.com> To: Ian Smith <smithi@nimnet.asn.au> Cc: Mark Felder <feld@freebsd.org>, "freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org" <freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: [Bug 216867] IPFW workstation rules block DNSSEC resulting in DNS failure on freebsd.org domains Message-ID: <CAHu1Y71bA4=WDwEPfWEhAwQd02AG4ksKCsZW8HCG%2BLn%2BUrywQg@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20170308013059.I87835@sola.nimnet.asn.au> References: <bug-216867-7515@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> <bug-216867-7515-niEJ7KtnU7@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> <20170308013059.I87835@sola.nimnet.asn.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 9:43 AM, Ian Smith <smithi@nimnet.asn.au> wrote: However, looking at the review patch, I do wonder if the reass shouldn't > precede, rather than follow, the check-state? > > Absolutely, yes - fragments don't carry sub-protocol info. --=20 "Well," Brahma said, "even after ten thousand explanations, a fool is no wiser, but an intelligent person requires only two thousand five hundred." - The Mah=C4=81bh=C4=81rata
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAHu1Y71bA4=WDwEPfWEhAwQd02AG4ksKCsZW8HCG%2BLn%2BUrywQg>