On Nov 26, 2003, at 1:12 PM, Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino wrote:

>>> 	ip_randomid() there's guaranteed recycle period, which is about 
>>> 12000.
>>> 	yes, the likelihood of the problem like you stated will increase
>>> 	by factor of (64K/12K), but with that cost we can buy hard-to-guess
>>> 	fragment ID.
>>
>> You seem to take it as an article of faith that somewhat harder to
>> predict ip_ids is worth *all* the downsides it carries with it.  I
>> haven't noticed anyone else here who shares that opinion.
>>
>> Instead, I see several different people articulating the same
>> fundamental issue, all saying that the alleged security from
>> randomized IP IDs just isnt worth it -- in some cases, saying that
>> even if the random-id algoithm cost no more than the prior linear
>> incrementing IDs, it *still* isn't worth it.
>>
>> Shouldn't that be telling you something?
>
> 	nope.
>
> 	anyways, i will remove the RANDOM_IP_ID #ifdef, as less #ifdef is 
> always
> 	better, and we have sysctl for controlling it.  the default value for
> 	the sysctl would still be debetable, but i leave it to 0, for now.

#ifdef's are not bad.  It allows users to trim unneeded code from their
kernels.  This is very important in embedded systems.

Put the ifdef's back, please.
-- 
Matt Thomas                     email: matt@3am-software.com
3am Software Foundry              www: http://3am-software.com/bio/matt/
Cupertino, CA              disclaimer: I avow all knowledge of this 
message.