Perry Harrington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I don't think the behavior should change because of DSR. DSR is more > useful than 'rightness' in my opinion. A switch to turn it off if you > don't want it is something I'd advocate, but the default should be 'on'. Why? Using direct service return is the unusual case. People who're doing load-balancing already need to do complex configuration -- what's so big about also having to turn on a flag to use the Weak ES Model? If you can make the average system more secure by making Strong ES the default, why not do so? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Dan Harkless | To prevent SPAM contamination, please [EMAIL PROTECTED] | do not mention this private email SpeedGate Communications, Inc. | address in Usenet posts. Thank you.
- Re: Loopback and multi-homed routing flaw in TCP/IP stack... Perry Harrington
- Re: Loopback and multi-homed routing flaw in TCP/IP ... ddowney
- Re: Loopback and multi-homed routing flaw in TCP... Perry Harrington
- Re: Loopback and multi-homed routing flaw in... Ben Laurie
- Re: Loopback and multi-homed routing fla... Perry Harrington
- Re: Loopback and multi-homed routin... Ben Laurie
- Re: Loopback and multi-homed routing flaw in... Dan Harkless
- Re: Loopback and multi-homed routing flaw in TCP/IP ... ddowney
- Re: Loopback and multi-homed routing flaw in TCP/IP ... John Cronin
- Re: Loopback and multi-homed routing flaw in TCP/IP stack... Neil W Rickert
- Re: Loopback and multi-homed routing flaw in TCP/IP ... Ben Laurie
- Re: Loopback and multi-homed routing flaw in TCP... David Litchfield
- Re: Loopback and multi-homed routing flaw in... Robert Collins
- Re: Loopback and multi-homed routing flaw in... Lincoln Yeoh
- Re: Loopback and multi-homed routing flaw in TCP/IP ... Lars Mathiesen
- Re: Loopback and multi-homed routing flaw in TCP/IP stack... Lothar Beta