[Firehol-support] "protection strong" on routes

[Costa Tsaousis]

Well, I am a little bit confused.
We need "flood" and "bad-packets" or "strong-without-flood"?

On the other hand, increasing the frequency and burst level does not fix 
the issue with flood matches?

Costa

Jean-Michel Hiver wrote:
> Carlos Rodrigues a écrit :
>
>> "protection bad-packets" sounds better and is more expressive than
>> "protection basic".
>>  
>>
> I agree. So the pitch would be:
>
> - protection strong
> - protection flood
> - protection bad-packets
>
> Sounds good to me. Now let's pray the gods of programmer's goodwill / 
> inspiration and hope it makes it in the next release - I'll be 
> sacrificing a black chicken :)
>
> Cheers,
> Jean-Michel.
>