netdev
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: missing icmp errors for udp packets

To: Pekka Savola <pekkas@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: missing icmp errors for udp packets
From: Chris Wedgwood <cw@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2001 08:53:36 +1200
Cc: kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, therapy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, davem@xxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0107312249230.20772-100000@netcore.fi>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0107312249230.20772-100000@netcore.fi>
Sender: owner-netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.3.18i
On Tue, Jul 31, 2001 at 10:59:39PM +0300, Pekka Savola wrote:

    bad ping responder == bad PR ;-)

    And anyway, who is anyone to judge what the system should be used
    for?

    I want a system to respond to ping without limitations; it's good
    for debugging, diagnostics, etc.  If I want, I can just filter the
    requests out, or rate-limit the responses.

People who want to do strange stuff can tweak via sysctl.

    However, ICMP error messages cannot be effectively filtered; they
    may happen due to TTL=0 when forwarding, legit or illegit UDP
    connection etc.; only way to effectively limit them is by
    rate-limiting.  If rate-limiting with informational and error
    types are the same, we have an inflexible situation here.

Networks are lossy, you can spill the odd packet anyhow.

It was just a suggestion that we merge all ICMP rate-limiting for
simplicity, I don't see it being an issue for the majority of users.

Perhaps I am wrong, in which case DaveM and Alexey will ignore me :)

I really don't see the need to continue to discuss this further on the
list, but by all means flame me in private!





  --cw

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>