On Thu, Sep 06, 2001 at 04:43:57PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > Eric Van Buggenhaut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > On Wed, Sep 05, 2001 at 02:37:28PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > > > Russell Coker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > > > Why should the default configuration be changed to account for the > > > > diminishing number of broken routers on the net? > > > > > > >From a technical behavior, throwing away packets with unknown protocol > > > flags is perfectly acceptable in any case and even reasonable in some > > > environments. > > > > No it's not, you're violating RFC 793. > > I was indeed wrong, but not because of RFC 793. IIRC, there isn't > such a required in this standard.
Yes there is. RFC 793 reserve bits 'for future use'. These bits may not be touched by a router or a firewall. The buggy hardware we are talking about zeroes those bits. Thus they violate RFC793. -- Eric VAN BUGGENHAUT "Oh My God! They killed init! You Bastards!" --from a /. post \_|_/ Andago \/ \/ Av. Santa Engracia, 54 a n d a g o |-- E-28010 Madrid - tfno:+34(91)2041100 /\___/\ http://www.andago.com / | \ "Innovando en Internet" [EMAIL PROTECTED]