|
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
Re: [SPAM] Re: [SPAM] [Full-Disclosure] Your daily internet traffic report |  |
- To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Subject: Re: [SPAM] Re: [SPAM] [Full-Disclosure] Your daily internet traffic report
- From: Hugo van der Kooij <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
- Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 11:19:23 +0200 (CEST)
- In-reply-to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
- References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
- Reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 |
| |
On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > Most routers will regard any ICMP request to them as a low priority
> issue.
> >
> > do they? icmp is not only about 'echo'. there's lot of
> > other functions via type/code - fragmentation, mtu etc,
> > vital for traffic signalization. administrators, who
> > blindly closes all icmp traffic are plain stupid idiots.
>
> Lots 'o flame but no light.
>
> How about sharing your knowledge of why certain icmp traffic should be
> allowed and the risks associated with allowing that traffic?
Just to name one: Path MTU discovery (RFC 1191)
This memo describes a technique for dynamically discovering the
maximum transmission unit (MTU) of an arbitrary internet path. It
specifies a small change to the way routers generate one type of ICMP
message.
Hugo.
--
I hate duplicates. Just reply to the relevant mailinglist.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hvdkooij.xs4all.nl/
Don't meddle in the affairs of magicians,
for they are subtle and quick to anger.
_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
| |