Subject: Re: ip_flow.c
To: None <Havard.Eidnes@runit.sintef.no>
From: Andrew Brown <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 01/29/1999 18:51:51
>seeing the quotes from RFC1812 and the discussion, I must say
>that the existence of vendors who knowingly violate the RFC is
>not a particularly compelling argument for NetBSD doing the same.
certainly not. or else why don't we just follow micro$oft and their
>I can't speak to the status of RFC1812 (and I'm not on-line at
>the moment, so I can't easily check), but I would be surprised if
>it would fall into the general category of "not a standard, but a
>recommendation for your information".
1812 Requirements for IP Version 4 Routers. F. Baker. June 1995.
(Format: TXT=415740 bytes) (Obsoletes RFC1716, RFC1009) (Status:
so it's somewhere in between. but more than a "gee, we'd really like
|-----< "CODE WARRIOR" >-----|
email@example.com * "ah! i see you have the internet
firstname.lastname@example.org (Andrew Brown) that goes *ping*!"
email@example.com * "information is power -- share the wealth."