Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 11 Apr 1996 19:05:27 +0100 (BST) | From | Bryn Paul Arnold Jones <> | Subject | Re: firewall, reject: icmp vs. tcp |
| |
On Wed, 10 Apr 1996, Ulrich Windl wrote:
> On 9 Apr 96 at 14:59, Alan Cox wrote: > > Someone (not Alan Cox) wrote: > > > e.g. "ipfwadm -I -a reject -S <source> -D <dest> <port> -P tcp", then > > > on the host <source> requesting for that connection, ICMP packets > > > arrive telling something like "port unreachable". > > > > > > unfortunately, some tcp/ip stacks, at least win/NT and w95, do not understand > > > these icmp packets and continue to try to open a connection until a timeout > > > occurres. > > > > #if YOU_LIKE_STANDARDS > It really makes me angry that big companies don't obey the standards > even when they complain to implement one. For eyample Win95 does NOT > implement DHCP correctly; as Alan indicates they didn't implement IP > correctly, too. But people buy these things and then they complain... #else #if ;) Hmm, the standards are broken, they don't work with our (MS) products.
#else /* ;) */ What are these peskie standards that stop us calling MS_IP, MS_DHCP, and MS_... our own propritry methords, and not broken ?
#endif /* ;) */
> #endif /* YOU_LIKE_STANDARDS >
Bryn
-- PGP key pass phrase forgoten, \ Overload -- core meltdown sequence again :( | initiated. / This space is intentionally left | blank, apart from this text ;-) \____________________________________
| |