Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2003 13:24:30 -0800 From: Jordan K Hubbard <jkh@queasyweasel.com> To: Peter Wemm <peter@wemm.org> Cc: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Proposal regarding the RFC 3514 handling Message-ID: <7DDCFFBC-6551-11D7-87AF-000393BB9222@queasyweasel.com> In-Reply-To: <20030402194821.C33692A8A5@canning.wemm.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
All of this discussion begs the question, however: Since we've set a precedent here, when does Jim Fleming's IPv8 support get rolled in? FreeBSD could certainly use "stargates" as a way of impressing Julian's Linux-using friends! - Jordan On Wednesday, April 2, 2003, at 11:48 AM, Peter Wemm wrote: > Alexander Leidinger wrote: >> On Tue, 1 Apr 2003 00:21:44 -0800 (PST) >> "Matthew N. Dodd" <mdodd@freebsd.org> wrote: >> >>> mdodd 2003/04/01 00:21:44 PST >>> >>> FreeBSD src repository >>> >>> Modified files: >>> sbin/ping ping.8 ping.c >>> share/man/man4 inet.4 ip.4 >>> sys/netinet in.h in_pcb.h ip.h ip_input.c ip_output.c >>> ip_var.h >>> usr.bin/netstat inet.c >>> Log: >>> Implement support for RFC 3514 (The Security Flag in the IPv4 >>> Header). >> >> In the light of the actual "force" against this commit: perhaps it >> would >> be ok for all involved parties to only compile this code in based >> upon a >> kernel option... > > Personally, I tend to agree. > >> In my POV: people which don't know enough about this topic would IMHO >> not be concerned about this code, and people which know enough to >> have a >> reason to compile or not compile this code into the kernel should also >> know enough about FreeBSD to not regard this code as a lack of >> professionalism (and see it as what it is: there are people which >> enjoy >> to invest their time into FreeBSD... and this is what makes FreeBSD >> what >> it is). > > Exactly. We're supposed to be doing FreeBSD for our own enjoyment. If > others get use from it then fine. The day that we're no longer > allowed to > have fun because it might upset somebody in some fortune-500 company > will > be a sad day indeed. Nobody said we had to be 100% deadly serious the > whole time. > > .. as long as having a bit of fun doesn't get in the way.. An option > would > stop it being in the code execution paths. > > On the other hand, we have so much cruft in the ip input/output code > paths > (2 or 3 different packet filter hooks etc), this is tiny by comparison. > > Anyway, I think Matthew is going to to remove it, so maybe its a moot > point. > > Cheers, > -Peter > -- > Peter Wemm - peter@wemm.org; peter@FreeBSD.org; peter@yahoo-inc.com > "All of this is for nothing if we don't go to the stars" - JMS/B5 > > -- Jordan K. Hubbard Engineering Manager, BSD technology group Apple Computer
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?7DDCFFBC-6551-11D7-87AF-000393BB9222>