Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 22:24:51 +0200 From: Laurent Frigault <lfrigault@agneau.org> To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Other possible protection against RST/SYN attacks (was Re: TCP RST attack Message-ID: <20040421202451.GA9515@obelix.bergerie.agneau.org> 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
On Wed, Apr 21, 2004 at 04:14:46PM -0400, Mike Tancsa wrote: > > Well, not every BGP sessions are established between directly > >connected interfaces. This would not work with "multi-hop BGP" sessions :-) > > Thanks, I realize that, especially with iBGP. However for directly > connected eBGP peers, the question still stands. Yes. This should be better handled by quagga/zebra . Regards, -- Laurent Frigault | <url:http://www.agneau.org/>; If NT is the answer, you didn't understand the question.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040421202451.GA9515>