IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: resistance to swamping attacks.

Bill Sommerfeld <sommerfeld@apollo.hp.com> Fri, 20 September 1996 19:13 UTC

Received: from relay.hq.tis.com by neptune.TIS.COM id aa28389; 20 Sep 96 15:13 EDT
Received: by relay.hq.tis.com; id PAA17583; Fri, 20 Sep 1996 15:17:25 -0400
Received: from sol.hq.tis.com(10.33.1.100) by relay.tis.com via smap (V3.1.1) id xma017540; Fri, 20 Sep 96 15:16:57 -0400
Received: from relay.hq.tis.com by tis.com (4.1/SUN-5.64) id AA28556; Fri, 20 Sep 96 15:16:07 EDT
Received: by relay.hq.tis.com; id PAA17528; Fri, 20 Sep 1996 15:16:55 -0400
Received: from capone.ch.apollo.hp.com(15.254.24.3) by relay.tis.com via smap (V3.1.1) id xma017516; Fri, 20 Sep 96 15:16:41 -0400
Received: from thunk.orchard.medford.ma.us (thunk.ch.apollo.hp.com) by capone.ch.apollo.hp.com id <AA184917142@capone.ch.apollo.hp.com>; Fri, 20 Sep 1996 15:19:02 -0400
Received: from thunk (sommerfeld@localhost) by thunk.orchard.medford.ma.us (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id PAA00538; Fri, 20 Sep 1996 15:19:00 -0400
Message-Id: <199609201919.PAA00538@thunk.orchard.medford.ma.us>
X-Authentication-Warning: thunk.orchard.medford.ma.us: sommerfeld owned process doing -bs
To: touch@isi.edu
Cc: kim@morningstar.com, ipsec@TIS.COM
Subject: Re: resistance to swamping attacks.
In-Reply-To: touch's message of Fri, 20 Sep 1996 12:12:15 -0700. <199609201912.AA02342@ash.isi.edu>
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 15:18:59 -0400
From: Bill Sommerfeld <sommerfeld@apollo.hp.com>
Sender: ipsec-approval@neptune.tis.com
Precedence: bulk

> But then you're authenicating the signature, but not the packet
> itself, no?

Huh?  Are we using the same definition of "authentication"?

						- Bill

v2.37.1 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status