Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 15:20:02 -0700 From: Bill Fumerola <billf@FreeBSD.org> To: Borja Marcos <borjamar@sarenet.es> Cc: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Other possible protection against RST/SYN attacks (was Re: TCP RST attack Message-ID: <20040421222002.GQ17862@elvis.mu.org> In-Reply-To: <48FCF8AA-93CF-11D8-9C50-000393C94468@sarenet.es> 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>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Apr 21, 2004 at 10:05:49PM +0200, Borja Marcos wrote: > >Are there any "bad things" that can happen by doing this ? > > Well, not every BGP sessions are established between directly > connected interfaces. This would not work with "multi-hop BGP" sessions GTSM works for multihop and this scenario is addressed in RFC3682. -- - bill fumerola / fumerola@yahoo-inc.com / billf@FreeBSD.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040421222002.GQ17862>