Proposed patch for Port Randomization modifications according to RFC6056

[Giorgos Keramidas]

On Fri, 28 Jan 2011 11:00:40 -0800, Doug Barton <dougb at FreeBSD.org> wrote:
> I haven't reviewed the patch in detail yet but I wanted to first thank
> you for taking on this work, and being so responsive to Fernando's
> request (which I agreed with, and you updated before I even had a
> chance to say so). :)

Thanks from me too.

> My one comment so far is on the name of the sysctl's. There are 2
> problems with sysctl/variable names that use an rfc title. The first is
> that they are not very descriptive to the 99.9% of users who are not
> familiar with that particular doc. The second is more esoteric, but if
> the rfc is subsequently updated or obsoleted we're stuck with either an
> anachronism or updating code (both of which have their potential areas
> of confusion).
>
> So in order to avoid this issue, and make it more consistent with the
> existing:
>
> net.inet.ip.portrange.randomtime
> net.inet.ip.portrange.randomcps
> net.inet.ip.portrange.randomized
>
> How does net.inet.ip.portrange.randomalg sound? I would also suggest
> that the second sysctl be named
> net.inet.ip.portrange.randomalg.alg5_tradeoff so that one could do
> sysctl net.inet.ip.portrange.randomalg' and see both values. But I won't
> quibble on that. :)

It's a usability issue too, so I'd certainly support renaming the
sysctls to something human-friendly.  It's always bad enough to go
through look at a search engine to find out what net.inet.rfc1234
means.  It's worse when RFC 1234 has been obsoleted a few years ago
and now it's called RFC 54321.