Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2001 21:42:32 -0500 (CDT) From: Mike Silbersack <silby@silby.com> To: Dragos Ruiu <dr@kyx.net> Cc: <cjclark@alum.mit.edu>, Darren Reed <avalon@coombs.anu.edu.au>, Yonatan Bokovza <Yonatan@xpert.com>, "'freebsd-security@freebsd.org'" <freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: FW: Small TCP packets == very large overhead == DoS? Message-ID: <20010708213736.C26132-100000@achilles.silby.com> In-Reply-To: <0107081922111G.08020@smp.kyx.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 8 Jul 2001, Dragos Ruiu wrote: > > Am I understanding this correctly? You intend to muck with the > RFC value and create another variant in behaviour to tweak for > and to worry about, to account for the possibility of clients that > have lame packet overhead behaviour? > > just curious, > --dr There's nothing wrong with questioning the correctness of RFCs. They were, after all, written by ordinary mortals like everyone in this discussion. Maybe 256 is too high, perhaps 128 would be more reasonable. 64 seems way too small in any case. Your arguement about latency isn't relevant here. If you were writing a latency-sensitive app, you wouldn't be running tcp. Also, as I understand it, we're setting a minimum on the maximum, not a minimum on the minimum. Mike "Silby" Silbersack To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010708213736.C26132-100000>