Re: happy eyesockets

> On 23 Mar 2025, at 12:48 PM, Michael van Elst <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> On Sun, Mar 23, 2025 at 08:13:34AM -0400, Greg Troxel wrote:
>> [email protected] (Michael van Elst) writes:
>> 
>>> [email protected] (Greg Troxel) writes:
>>> 
>>>> I don't object and I think you have a good point, but what do the
>>>> standards say?
>>> 
>>> RFC1122 describes how to handle ICMP messages and distinguishes
>>> between soft errors (event gets registered, but protocol continues)
>>> and hard errors (a TCP connection is aborted).
>> 
>> As I understand you, the proposed chagne is noncompilant, and thus
>> presumptively shouldn't go in.  Is that how you see it?
> 
> 
> Yes. At least the EHOSTUNREACH error should not abort and the test
> needs to be refined further for IPv6.
> 
> I'm not sure if if then still helps for broken IPv6 networks.
Is ipv6 broken on netbsd ?
> 
> 
> Greetings,
> -- 
>                                Michael van Elst
> Internet: [email protected]
>                                "A potential Snark may lurk in every tree."


Emmanuel