Re: firewall, reject: icmp vs. tcp

Rogier Wolff (r.e.wolff@et.tudelft.nl)
Thu, 11 Apr 1996 17:47:05 +0200

Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
Next message: Thayne Harbaugh: "Re: Lack of message volume"
Previous message: DUPRE Christophe: "US-ISDN ??"
Maybe in reply to: Herbert Rosmanith: "firewall, reject: icmp vs. tcp"

Jos Vos wrote:
>
Jos Vos wrote:
> [someone else wrote]:
> > > > But shouldn't the ICMP code be one of
> > > > 9 Communication with Destination Network is
> > > > Administratively Prohibited
> > > > 10 Communication with Destination Host is
> > > > Administratively Prohibited
>
> We should ask ourselves how many percent of the TCP/IP systems in the
> world recognizes this code correctly. I understood Windows/NT doesn't
> even recognize the other ICMP messages (who was talking about "older
> systems"? :-)).

I would like a configurable option (in the section "better leave
these alone"?) which switches between the old/reliable codes, and the
officially correct ones.

I for one would chose for the officially correct ones, and would be
laughing about those stupid NT machines that I would case trouble for
this way :-) (they are not allowed to communicate with the host in
question anyway right?)

Roger.

-- 
 ** Q: What's the difference between MicroSoft Windows and a virus?       **
 ** A: Apart from the fact that virusses are supported by their authors,  **
 **  use optimized, small code and usually perform well, none.            **
 ** EMail: R.E.Wolff@et.tudelft.nl * Tel +31-15-2783643 or +31-15-2137459 **
 *** <a href="http://einstein.et.tudelft.nl/~wolff/">my own homepage</a> ***

Next message: Thayne Harbaugh: "Re: Lack of message volume"
Previous message: DUPRE Christophe: "US-ISDN ??"
Maybe in reply to: Herbert Rosmanith: "firewall, reject: icmp vs. tcp"