On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 7:31 PM, Christiano F. Haesbaert <haesba...@haesbaert.org> wrote: > On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 04:40:08PM -0700, Philip Guenther wrote: >> On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 4:13 PM, Christiano F. Haesbaert >> <haesba...@haesbaert.org> wrote: >> > Hi, this diff adds a sysctl to disable kernel icmp echo processing and >> > pass it >> > to userland via raw sockets. I'm terrible with names but I chose userecho, >> > so >> > net.inet.icmp.userecho. >> >> IMO, a per-socket option makes more sense than an all-machine sysctl. > > I don't like the idea much, suppose there is no process using the option, > should > the kernel still answer the echo requests ? > > But then if we do have a process using the option, should we answer the > request > *and* forward the packet ?
Good point. Hmm, would it work to set up proxy arp for a nonexistent IP on the same net, use bpf to snag the packets for it, and a raw socket to send packets for it? <shurg> Philip Guenther
