Re: missing icmp errors for udp packets

Chris Wedgwood (cw@f00f.org)
Wed, 1 Aug 2001 08:53:36 +1200


On Tue, Jul 31, 2001 at 10:59:39PM +0300, Pekka Savola wrote:

bad ping responder == bad PR ;-)

And anyway, who is anyone to judge what the system should be used
for?

I want a system to respond to ping without limitations; it's good
for debugging, diagnostics, etc. If I want, I can just filter the
requests out, or rate-limit the responses.

People who want to do strange stuff can tweak via sysctl.

However, ICMP error messages cannot be effectively filtered; they
may happen due to TTL=0 when forwarding, legit or illegit UDP
connection etc.; only way to effectively limit them is by
rate-limiting. If rate-limiting with informational and error
types are the same, we have an inflexible situation here.

Networks are lossy, you can spill the odd packet anyhow.

It was just a suggestion that we merge all ICMP rate-limiting for
simplicity, I don't see it being an issue for the majority of users.

Perhaps I am wrong, in which case DaveM and Alexey will ignore me :)

I really don't see the need to continue to discuss this further on the
list, but by all means flame me in private!

--cw
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/