jbvb@VAX.FTP.COM (James Van Bokkelen) (08/04/88)
I can testify that HP UX doesn't have the 4.2 "crash on unknown IP option" bug (which at least a couple of other 4.2-derived Unices still have). If you (or anyone else) have Internet hosts which you would like to check out with TCP using Precedence and the IP Basic & Extended Security options, send me mail, giving the name & IP address, and any other constraints you would like to impose (I will not be able to deliver on 'a phone call before you try it'). Commercial IP routers from Proteon, and the MIT C-gateway, are known to forward packets containing these options. 4.3 Unix and cisco terminal concentrators handle them correctly at the application layer, so I have hopes that 4.3 & cisco routers will forward them as well. If you are connected to the Internet via a 4.2-based router, it may fail to forward the packets, or even crash. I will reply with e-mail declaring a time when I will do the testing (which can interrupt operations on some hosts, e.g. SunOS 3.4 and Ultrix 2.0). I will use ICMP Echo Request and TCP (usually finger, Telnet or SMTP if finger isn't supported) to test behaviour. Symptoms I have observed while testing the Basic & Extended security options include: Go deaf to the net for 5 minutes on either Ping or TCP (but not crash) Ignore Ping, crash on TCP or UDP. Ignore Ping and TCP. Ignore Ping, Reset attempted TCP connections. Ignore Ping, open TCP connections ok. Reply w/o option to Ping, open TCP connections ok. Reply w/option to Ping, ignore TCP connection attempts. Reply w/option to Ping, Reset attempted TCP connections. Reply w/option to Ping, open TCP connections ok. The current list of implementations that I have observed correctly supporting TCP with IP Precedence is: Wiscnet on IBM VM systems. KA9Q on IBM PCs. PC/TCP v2.03 (in beta test). The list of implementations which I have observed as unable to handle the RFC-1038 IP Security options will appear later this month. James VanBokkelen FTP Software Inc. (617) 868-4878 jbvb@vax.ftp.com