[Firehol-support] "protection strong" on routes

[Costa Tsaousis]

Carlos Rodrigues wrote:

>
>I think having "flood" and "bad-packets" is better.
>"strong-without-flood" is the same as "bad-packets" (and "bad-packets"
>sounds better), which is the one that has the real value (just filter
>out the trash, and otherwise not messing with the traffic), and
>"flood" would be just for completeness (as I can't see of a reason to
>use "protection flood" and not using "bad-packets" also).
>
>  
>
ok. I have added 'bad-packets' in v1.247.
I chose not to add 'flood' because there is already an undocumented (I 
documented it now) 'all-floods' protection that matches new connections 
on all protocols.

Costa