Subject: Re: misc/3212: Source routing configuration problem
To: Kevin M. Lahey <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Jonathan Stone <jonathan@DSG.Stanford.EDU>
Date: 02/18/1997 00:38:38
Kevin Lahey writes:
In message <199702151605.LAA10726@Twig.Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA>der Mouse writes
>> NetBSD ships with 'net.inet.ip.forwsrcrt = 1'. This means it
>> will forward source routed packets.
>This is as it should be. Source routes are in IP for a reason, and
>they're useful in some cases (most cases where I've wished for them
>have been fault isolation debugging). Yes, it's unfortunate that there
>are a lot of hosts out there that handle them wrong, but that's not the
>fault of source routes and breaking source routes is the wrong fix.
>I kind of liked the other idea in this pr, namely, adding an option
>to discard source routed packets as they arrive, so that they don't
>make it up the protocol stack. RFC1122 explicitly states that
>source routed packets MUST be handed up the protocol state, but
>perhaps it was a product of a kinder and gentler age. It would
>be really easy to add 'net.inet.ip.acceptsrcrt'.
>Would anyone object to such an addition?
How about the alternative:
I find the `drop' names reflect the intent more clearly. It's more
extensible and consisent with, e.g., ip_fil usage, too.
Is there any other IP traffic that one would want toggles to drop?