Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2003 18:47:30 -0300 From: "Daniel C. Sobral" <dcs@newsguy.com> To: Jordan K Hubbard <jkh@queasyweasel.com> Cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Proposal regarding the RFC 3514 handling Message-ID: <3E8B5A72.9090603@newsguy.com> In-Reply-To: <7DDCFFBC-6551-11D7-87AF-000393BB9222@queasyweasel.com> References: <7DDCFFBC-6551-11D7-87AF-000393BB9222@queasyweasel.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Mmmmmm. I fear the repecursion of my planned loader regex support changes... :-) Jordan K Hubbard wrote: > 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 > > -- Daniel C. Sobral (8-DCS) dcs@newsguy.com dcs@freebsd.org capo@professional.bsdconspiracy.net Spellng is overated anywy.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3E8B5A72.9090603>