On Thu, Dec 07, 2006 at 10:33:02PM -0500, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
> 
> Manuel Bouyer <bouyer@antioche.eu.org> writes:
> > On Thu, Dec 07, 2006 at 04:40:24PM -0500, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
> >> > spoofed, then yes it's an acceptable solution.
> >> 
> >> That is one problem. The bigger problem is processes that don't know
> >> that they should be doing something to re-open a socket because their
> >> original connection is no longer actually real.
> >
> > Sure but I'm not sure this would be fixed by closing connections.
> 
> There we will have to disagree. I don't think it is reasonable to
> leave around "connections to nowhere". If you know that a connection

We're not talking about the same thing; here we're talking about established
connections, I was talking about daemons that needs to notice the host IP
address has changed

> can't be of any further use and that the packets it could send will
> never get anywhere and can't be replied to, I think there is something
> wrong with leaving things be.

We're disagreeing on the "never". You don't know if the IP address that
dissapeared will be back or not.

-- 
Manuel Bouyer, LIP6, Universite Paris VI.           Manuel.Bouyer@lip6.fr
     NetBSD: 26 ans d'experience feront toujours la difference
--