nanog mailing list archives
RE: [long] Re: DDoS: CAR vs TCP-Intercept vs NetFlow
From: Vijay Gill <wrath () cs umbc edu>
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 22:45:21 -0500 (EST)
On Mon, 28 Feb 2000, Paul Ferguson wrote:
Again, forget about flow-switching in any context except for tracing back attackers.
Correct.
If you want the functionality to lower the threshold of DoS pain, CEF is your baby.
When it is working, yes.
This is an operational forum, yes? Where is the input from the (current) operators?
We're still waiting on the hidden commands to be documented as mentioned below. http://www.zdnet.com/intweek/stories/news/0,4164,2435950,00.html {quote} Routers from Cisco and other vendors have the ability to detect the signature patterns of a denial-of-service attack, and the routers can filter out that traffic, Farnsworth said. \end{quote} /vijay
Current thread:
- DDoS: CAR vs TCP-Intercept vs NetFlow Rubens Kuhl Jr. (Feb 28)
- Re: DDoS: CAR vs TCP-Intercept vs NetFlow Richard Steenbergen (Feb 28)
- [long] Re: DDoS: CAR vs TCP-Intercept vs NetFlow Paul Ferguson (Feb 28)
- RE: [long] Re: DDoS: CAR vs TCP-Intercept vs NetFlow Rubens Kuhl Jr. (Feb 28)
- RE: [long] Re: DDoS: CAR vs TCP-Intercept vs NetFlow Paul Ferguson (Feb 28)
- RE: [long] Re: DDoS: CAR vs TCP-Intercept vs NetFlow Vijay Gill (Feb 28)
- Message not available
- RE: [long] Re: DDoS: CAR vs TCP-Intercept vs NetFlow Paul Ferguson (Feb 28)
- Re: [long] Re: DDoS: CAR vs TCP-Intercept vs NetFlow Valdis . Kletnieks (Feb 28)
- RE: [long] Re: DDoS: CAR vs TCP-Intercept vs NetFlow Rubens Kuhl Jr. (Feb 28)
- Re: [long] Re: DDoS: CAR vs TCP-Intercept vs NetFlow Richard Steenbergen (Feb 28)
- Re: [long] Re: DDoS: CAR vs TCP-Intercept vs NetFlow Paul Ferguson (Feb 28)