|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: syn attack and source routing
read my message again, john. i said i don't like the prospect of removing lsrr. i use it. i hate running across backbones that have it disabled. i wasn't campaigning to remove it. i was asking how dangerous it could be because i honestly didn't know. i didn't mean to alarm anyone or imply that i would be turning off lsrr. :) -brett > From: John Hawkinson <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: syn attack and source routing > > Return-Path: <[email protected]> > In-Reply-To: <[email protected]> from "Brett D. Watson" > *** at Sep 18, 96 09:40:02 am > X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] > MIME-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > > i should have been more specific. i don't like the idea (at all) of > > breaking traceroute -g either. i guess in a more general sense i > > should ask "just how dangerous *is* having backbone-wide/internet-wide > > loose source routing enabled?". > > As Curtis explained, "not very". > > Worst case, those folks feeling victimized can (and do!) simply shut > it off. > > This is a very different case from that of SYN flooding, where the > victims are powerless to stop it. > > Please don't take our LSRR away from us, it is very useful. > Campaigning to remove something just because you suspect it might be > bad is really not nice -- it will result in random clueless people > believeing you when perchance they should not :-) > > --jhawk - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
|