Subject: Re: ip_flow.c
To: None <>
From: Andrew Brown <>
List: tech-net
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". says

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
it if..."

|-----< "CODE WARRIOR" >-----|             * "ah!  i see you have the internet (Andrew Brown)                that goes *ping*!"       * "information is power -- share the wealth."