From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG  Thu May  6 18:07:58 2004
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id BE92916A4CE; Thu,  6 May 2004 18:07:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relay.macomnet.ru (relay.macomnet.ru [195.128.64.10])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id B25BE43D2D; Thu,  6 May 2004 18:07:57 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from maxim@macomnet.ru)
Received: from mp3 (b5pou3w9@mp3files.int.ru [195.128.64.20])
	by relay.macomnet.ru (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i4717ru513545684;
	Fri, 7 May 2004 05:07:53 +0400 (MSD)
Date: Fri, 7 May 2004 05:07:53 +0400 (MSD)
From: Maxim Konovalov <maxim@macomnet.ru>
To: Andre Oppermann <andre@freebsd.org>
In-Reply-To: <409AD3D0.DF5114F@freebsd.org>
Message-ID: <20040507050215.F5417@mp3files.int.ru>
References: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0405061557410.82978-100000@InterJet.elischer.org>
 <409AD3D0.DF5114F@freebsd.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
cc: "David W. Chapman Jr." <dwcjr@inethouston.net>
cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
cc: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org>
Subject: Re: Default behaviour of IP Options processing
X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD <freebsd-net.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net>,
	<mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-net>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-net@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net>,
	<mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 07 May 2004 01:07:58 -0000

[...]
> May I propose an default setting for IP options which allows for RR but
> restricts the packet size that will be acted upon and is rate limited like
> many of our ICMP replies to certain other events like closed ports etc?
> This would satisfy the RR tracers and make Jaques and me more happy than
> we are with the current situation.

Rate limit is OK.  Probably the packet size restrictions is OK too.
Do not think we need a special case for RR.

I hope you are not going to turn off ip fragmentation/reassembling by
default to make SO happy, aren't you?

-- 
Maxim Konovalov