>Other PRs open on this are:
>
>9690
>10189
>
>There may be more.

how egregious would it be to have, for example, "arp -p" reach down
into the kernel and tickle it into arping the given default gateway
intending only to elicit an arp reply?  the theory here being that if
you can't arp the default gateway, it ain't a good gateway, regardless
of whether it's filtering icmp (or other) or not.

anyone that's filtering will still have to respond to arp, right?
anyone filtering arp is a fascist and deserves to have to make
accomodations for installing netbsd (i guess one could program a
switch with a fixed hardware address table, right?).

-- 
|-----< "CODE WARRIOR" >-----|
codewarrior@daemon.org             * "ah!  i see you have the internet
twofsonet@graffiti.com (Andrew Brown)                that goes *ping*!"
andrew@crossbar.com       * "information is power -- share the wealth."