--xHFwDpU9dbj6ez1V
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Fri, Dec 08, 2006 at 06:06:08PM -0500, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Dec 2006 22:17:48 +0000 (UTC)
> christos@astron.com (Christos Zoulas) wrote:
>=20
> > In article <874ps6ozeg.fsf@snark.piermont.com>,
> > Perry E. Metzger <perry@piermont.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >This would be a very nice general capability, though
> > >"socketdrop" (one might want to drop UDP sockets bound to the
> > >vanished address etc.) might be a more general capability.
> >=20
> > The UDP bound problem probably needs fixing in the daemons because
> > some of them might not be prepared to deal with this kind of failure.
> >=20
> How about returning the same error that an ICMP ICMP_UNREACH_PORT
> returns?  (It's a particular case of Destination Unreachable).

If I understand things right, the problem is that we have a server=20
listening on bound sockets. Are servers used to getting ICMP_UNREACH_PORT=
=20
on the bound socket? On a send, yes, they should understand that! But I=20
didn't think many of them would be expecting an error once bind()=20
succeeded.

To be honest, I think TCP daemons still have this problem. If the daemon=20
is configured to bind to specific addresses, it has to know when they=20
change. Then it can redo the binding process.

Take care,

Bill

--xHFwDpU9dbj6ez1V
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (NetBSD)

iD8DBQFFfcv9Wz+3JHUci9cRAos8AJ4ilkVYTXDfUbyjfiIo7B4Z7axDwgCeNLNI
FOPvNu3Ppv1m/SZUOPmKHjs=
=zub0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--xHFwDpU9dbj6ez1V--