Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 22:20:26 +0200 From: Borja Marcos <borjamar@sarenet.es> To: Mike Tancsa <mike@sentex.net> Cc: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Other possible protection against RST/SYN attacks (was Re: TCP RST attack Message-ID: <539B9B0C-93D1-11D8-9C50-000393C94468@sarenet.es> In-Reply-To: <6.0.3.0.0.20040421161217.05453308@209.112.4.2> References: <6.0.3.0.0.20040420125557.06b10d48@209.112.4.2> <xzp65buh5fa.fsf@dwp.des.no> <6.0.3.0.0.20040420144001.0723ab80@209.112.4.2> <200404201332.40827.dr@kyx.net> <20040421111003.GB19640@lum.celabo.org> <6.0.3.0.0.20040421121715.04547510@209.112.4.2> <20040421165454.GB20049@lum.celabo.org> <6.0.3.0.0.20040421132605.0901bb40@209.112.4.2> <48FCF8AA-93CF-11D8-9C50-000393C94468@sarenet.es> <6.0.3.0.0.20040421161217.05453308@209.112.4.2>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Thanks, I realize that, especially with iBGP. However for directly > connected eBGP peers, the question still stands. > > What side effects if any are there? Why is the default 64 and not > some other number like 255... I am sure the answer is out there, I > just need to find the question so I can cram it into google ;-) I can only think that it is a reasonable default. With a ttl of 200, for example, a routing loop would waste a lot of bandwidth for each undeliverable packet. Borja.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?539B9B0C-93D1-11D8-9C50-000393C94468>