Re: Spoof protection / RFC1812

[Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org>]

>>>>> "Anthony" == Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> writes:
    Anthony> OTOH, I'm also disinclined to deliberately break an rfc's
    Anthony> "must not".

I'd consider writing to the author and asking what the working group
was thinking about.  I suspect that they wanted to avoid situations
where a user expected a default configuration router to just pass
packets and it didn't.  There are situations where a router may not
have good idea of the topology and spoof protection is a bad idea.
There are also times when you want to debug something and spoof
protection is really annoying.

However I suspect that people tend not to deploy Debian machines as
routers without either overriding the configuration completely
(replacing files in /etcwith their own copies) or going through the
configuration questions.  In the case where they go through the
configuration questions, the user will be aware of the behavior and
while it might be default at least the user has approved and accepted
it.