From owner-freebsd-security Thu Jan 27 4:56: 1 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Received: from public.bta.net.cn (public.bta.net.cn [202.96.0.97]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0C98153DD for ; Thu, 27 Jan 2000 04:55:53 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from robinson@netrinsics.com) Received: from netrinsics.com (robinson@gj-13-023.bta.net.cn [202.106.13.23]) by public.bta.net.cn (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA15496 for ; Thu, 27 Jan 2000 20:55:46 +0800 (CST) Received: (from robinson@localhost) by netrinsics.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA28713 for freebsd-security@freebsd.org; Thu, 27 Jan 2000 20:56:19 +0800 (+0800) (envelope-from robinson) Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 20:56:19 +0800 (+0800) From: Michael Robinson Message-Id: <200001271256.UAA28713@netrinsics.com> To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Subject: opinions on source quench Sender: owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org What is the prevailing opinion on accepting ICMP source quench? Which is greater, the danger of a spoofed DoS attack, or the danger of overloading some hapless downstream network node? -Michael Robinson To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message