Date: Tue, 6 May 1997 12:37:40 +0200 (MET DST) From: Mikael Karpberg <karpen@ocean.campus.luth.se> To: danny@panda.hilink.com.au (Daniel O'Callaghan) Cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: divert still broken? Message-ID: <199705061037.MAA26007@ocean.campus.luth.se> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.91.970506201004.4479n-100000@panda.hilink.com.au> from Daniel O'Callaghan at "May 6, 97 08:10:40 pm"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
According to Daniel O'Callaghan: > > > On Tue, 6 May 1997, Michael Reifenberger wrote: > > > > > So the choices are: > > > > deny : be silent > > > > reject: send ICMP !H > > > > reset : send RST > > > > > > Sounds OK with me.. any body else care to comment? > > > > In this case wouldn't match the keyword drop better than deny? > > Maybe. But it is better to keep the backward compatibility. That doesn't mean that drop isn't a better keyword, and should be made an alias for deny. Although, if it wasn't for backwards compability (which we should keep, IMHO) then it would be better with: drop : be silent deny : send RST reject : send ICMP !H netreject : send ICMP !N But... that's not gonna happen, because we want backwards compability, so just forget I said it... :-) /Mikael
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199705061037.MAA26007>