nanog mailing list archives
Re: Alternate and/or hidden infrastructure addresses (BGP/TCP RST/SYN vulnerability)
From: Alex Bligh <alex () alex org uk>
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 16:00:20 +0100
--On 23 April 2004 09:09 -0400 "Patrick W.Gilmore" <patrick () ianai net> wrote:
(TTL should only be decremented when _forwarding_, and I don't think you could argue that you need to _forward_ a packet from your ingress interface to your _loopback_ interface..)Well, if that were the case, then you wouldn't need multi-hop to do loopback peering.
Um, only if there were no intervening hops: i.e. where the physical mesh is A---B | | C---D Then A<->D, and B<->C peering requires multihop anyway. Alex
Current thread:
- Re: Alternate and/or hidden infrastructure addresses (BGP/TCP RST/SYN vulnerability), (continued)
- Re: Alternate and/or hidden infrastructure addresses (BGP/TCP RST/SYN vulnerability) James (Apr 22)
- Re: Alternate and/or hidden infrastructure addresses (BGP/TCP RST/SYN vulnerability) Matthew Crocker (Apr 22)
- Re: Alternate and/or hidden infrastructure addresses (BGP/TCP RST/SYN vulnerability) Stephen J. Wilcox (Apr 22)
- Re: Alternate and/or hidden infrastructure addresses (BGP/TCP RST/SYN vulnerability) James (Apr 22)
- Re: Alternate and/or hidden infrastructure addresses (BGP/TCP RST/SYN vulnerability) Patrick W . Gilmore (Apr 22)
- Re: Alternate and/or hidden infrastructure addresses (BGP/TCP RST/SYN vulnerability) Pekka Savola (Apr 23)
- Re: Alternate and/or hidden infrastructure addresses (BGP/TCP RST/SYN vulnerability) Patrick W . Gilmore (Apr 23)
- Re: Alternate and/or hidden infrastructure addresses (BGP/TCP RST/SYNvulnerability) sthaug (Apr 23)
- Re: Alternate and/or hidden infrastructure addresses (BGP/TCP RST/SYN vulnerability) Alex Bligh (Apr 23)
- Re: Alternate and/or hidden infrastructure addresses (BGP/TCP RST/SYN vulnerability) Pekka Savola (Apr 23)