Re: ICMP dest-unreach in SYN_* states of TCP

[Jamie Lokier]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> But generally: linux will send fake RSTs only via my corpse.
> If firewalls will start to use RST instead of ICMP, we have to
> ignore RST in established state. Is it good? The question is rethoric.

What's wrong with sending RSTs?  It is exactly the same behaviour as
an absent service.  A different token to "reject" e.g. "tcprst" makes
it the sysadmin's fault if it is wrong :-)

I can't see why we'd have to ignore RSTs in an established state.
Care to give an example?

thanks,
-- Jamie

ps. "rhetorical"
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-net" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]