> * Theo de Raadt <dera...@cvs.openbsd.org> [2013-11-14 18:47]: > > > it is the status quo *right now* > > > > Look, you can't call something the status quo when a commit was made 1 > > month ago, to a REAL status quo that existed for 10 years when itojun > > made the change... and immediately after this recent commit we > > started arguying about the change. > > > > Go find out what "status quo" means. > > let's not get into this, leads us nowhere.
I believe Alexander should either take us back to the status quo, or move us to the new world where we have a "solution" for the non-pf case as well. You are arguing for a case with NO PROTECTION against RH0. Ridiculous. > mikeb? bluhm worked on & comitted that otoh. > i'm still pretty damn sure you were Cc'd; won't dig for old mail just > to prove it; don't see the point, doesn't change anything now anyway. It was not shown to enough people. PERIOD. With your name as an OK on the commit, you share the responsibility of having made sure that everyone saw it, before that commit. The fact that a discussion is happening now AFTERWARDS, indicates that you failed to identify this as contentious, and involve everyone. You know better. > > The non-pf RH0 filtering case is worthwhile. > > and here we disagree. Do you run any routers with pf disabled? If so, please identify one, for a demonstration.
