The following reply was made to PR kern/35196; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Manuel Bouyer <bouyer@antioche.eu.org>
To: "Perry E. Metzger" <perry@piermont.com>
Cc: gnats-bugs@NetBSD.org, kern-bug-people@NetBSD.org,
	gnats-admin@NetBSD.org, netbsd-bugs@NetBSD.org
Subject: Re: kern/35196: sockets should die if addresses vanish
Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2006 08:55:34 +0100

 On Thu, Dec 07, 2006 at 10:33:02PM -0500, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
 > 
 > Manuel Bouyer <bouyer@antioche.eu.org> writes:
 > > On Thu, Dec 07, 2006 at 04:40:24PM -0500, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
 > >> > spoofed, then yes it's an acceptable solution.
 > >> 
 > >> That is one problem. The bigger problem is processes that don't know
 > >> that they should be doing something to re-open a socket because their
 > >> original connection is no longer actually real.
 > >
 > > Sure but I'm not sure this would be fixed by closing connections.
 > 
 > There we will have to disagree. I don't think it is reasonable to
 > leave around "connections to nowhere". If you know that a connection
 
 We're not talking about the same thing; here we're talking about established
 connections, I was talking about daemons that needs to notice the host IP
 address has changed
 
 > can't be of any further use and that the packets it could send will
 > never get anywhere and can't be replied to, I think there is something
 > wrong with leaving things be.
 
 We're disagreeing on the "never". You don't know if the IP address that
 dissapeared will be back or not.
 
 -- 
 Manuel Bouyer, LIP6, Universite Paris VI.           Manuel.Bouyer@lip6.fr
      NetBSD: 26 ans d'experience feront toujours la difference
 --