* RE: icmp-host-unreachable as opposed to destination-unreachable
@ 2006-03-07 15:23 Derick Anderson
2006-03-07 16:33 ` Martijn Lievaart
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Derick Anderson @ 2006-03-07 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: bclark, netfilter
> -----Original Message-----
> From: netfilter-bounces@lists.netfilter.org
> [mailto:netfilter-bounces@lists.netfilter.org] On Behalf Of bclark
> Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2006 6:45 AM
> To: netfilter@lists.netfilter.org
> Subject: icmp-host-unreachable as opposed to destination-unreachable
>
> Hi all
>
> Would anyone be kind to explain why would a person reject a
> connection to port 113 with icmp-host-unreachable as opposed
> to destination-unreachable.
> I probally dont understand the difference.
> Just something I was wondering.
>
> Kind Regards
> Brent Clark
>
From what I can tell, icmp-host-unreachable is a code (1) for the
destination-unreachable ICMP type (3). See
http://www.spirit.com/Resources/icmp.html for a little more information,
and Google RFC 792 for a lot more information.
Basically though, "host-unreachable" is more specific than
"destination-unreachable". I would think that code 3 would be more
appropriate ("port unreachable") to this specific rule but then I don't
bother with ident (port 113) rules. There's more information on that on
this page: http://grc.com/port_113.htm.
Derick Anderson
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread* RE: icmp-host-unreachable as opposed to destination-unreachable
2006-03-07 15:23 icmp-host-unreachable as opposed to destination-unreachable Derick Anderson
@ 2006-03-07 16:33 ` Martijn Lievaart
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Martijn Lievaart @ 2006-03-07 16:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: danderson; +Cc: netfilter
Derick Anderson zei:
>
>
> bclark said:
>> Hi all
>>
>> Would anyone be kind to explain why would a person reject a
>> connection to port 113 with icmp-host-unreachable as opposed
>> to destination-unreachable.
>> I probally dont understand the difference.
>> Just something I was wondering.
>>
>> Kind Regards
>> Brent Clark
>>
>
>>From what I can tell, icmp-host-unreachable is a code (1) for the
> destination-unreachable ICMP type (3). See
> http://www.spirit.com/Resources/icmp.html for a little more information,
> and Google RFC 792 for a lot more information.
>
> Basically though, "host-unreachable" is more specific than
> "destination-unreachable". I would think that code 3 would be more
> appropriate ("port unreachable") to this specific rule but then I don't
> bother with ident (port 113) rules. There's more information on that on
> this page: http://grc.com/port_113.htm.
Actually one should respond with a tcp reset to tcp/113. All icmp
*-unreachable replies can (and do) give differing results on different
sending tcp stacks.
HTH,
M4
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* icmp-host-unreachable as opposed to destination-unreachable
@ 2006-03-07 11:44 bclark
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: bclark @ 2006-03-07 11:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: netfilter
Hi all
Would anyone be kind to explain why would a person reject a connection to port 113 with icmp-host-unreachable as opposed to destination-unreachable.
I probally dont understand the difference.
Just something I was wondering.
Kind Regards
Brent Clark
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2006-03-07 16:33 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2006-03-07 15:23 icmp-host-unreachable as opposed to destination-unreachable Derick Anderson
2006-03-07 16:33 ` Martijn Lievaart
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2006-03-07 11:44 bclark
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox