Date: Thu, 12 Sep 1996 17:13:14 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> To: avalon@coombs.anu.edu.au (Darren Reed) Cc: terry@lambert.org, fenner@parc.xerox.com, karl@mcs.net, avalon@coombs.anu.edu.au, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org, koshy@india.hp.com Subject: Re: SYN Resisting (fwd) Message-ID: <199609130013.RAA07902@phaeton.artisoft.com> In-Reply-To: <199609122319.QAA05189@coyote.Artisoft.COM> from "Darren Reed" at Sep 13, 96 09:18:40 am
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> I suspect that most NSP's in the USA don't provide international access. All NSP's in the US connect to a NAP, or they aren't NSP's. So there are international interconnects for all of them, since you gointernational at the NAP's as well. Neither here nor there for the discussion, though. 8-). > The point being, when your network is all peachy from end to end, having > low timeouts is (maybe) acceptable, but when your endpoints are in > diverse locations and throughput is not 100%, who is really winning ? > > If the attacker is trying to cause denial of service, then it may be > achieved by the other end when they make it harder for real users to > connect quick enough. > > To my thinking, this is a silly solution (but a reasonable patch for the > sysctl :) to the SYN problem. The problem must and can only be fixed > with correct filtering by all ISPs so long as we use the current IP. Here we agree. If the point of your argument about bad traffic was that the SYN "patch" didn't consider all of the larger issues, then I agree 100%. Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199609130013.RAA07902>