It would seem more appropriate, somehow, to push the response to the ICMP message up into the protocols where they can take the appropriate action. Of course, the problem is that the PRC_* abstracted codes may not be rich enough to express all the semantics you'd wish to convey. So one goal might be to see if this sort of process could get pushed into netinet/tcp_sub.c:tcp_ctlinput(). Personally, I don't really like the idea of the icmp_input() function reaching into TCP's private state and doing stuff. There's too many potential interactions (e.g., what about IPSEC security associations?) I dunno, some of this is probably a matter of taste. louie To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
- Re: React to ICMP administratively prohibited ? Jesper Skriver
- Re: React to ICMP administratively prohibited... Mike Silbersack
- Re: React to ICMP administratively prohib... Jesper Skriver
- Re: React to ICMP administratively pr... Alfred Perlstein
- Re: React to ICMP administratively pr... Mike Silbersack
- Re: React to ICMP administrative... Jesper Skriver
- Re: React to ICMP administratively pr... Jesper Skriver
- Re: React to ICMP administrative... Louis A. Mamakos
- Re: React to ICMP administra... Jesper Skriver
- Re: React to ICMP administra... Jesper Skriver
- Re: React to ICMP administra... Louis A. Mamakos
- Re: React to ICMP administratively prohib... Louis A. Mamakos
- Re: React to ICMP administratively prohibited... Alfred Perlstein
- Re: React to ICMP administratively prohibited... Jesper Skriver
- Re: React to ICMP administratively prohib... Mike Silbersack
- Re: React to ICMP administratively prohibited ? John Hay
- Re: React to ICMP administratively prohibited ? Jesper Skriver
- Re: React to ICMP administratively prohibited ? - comm... Jesper Skriver
- Re: React to ICMP administratively prohibited ? Scumley O'Fluffigan

