IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: resistance to swamping attacks.

Matt Crawford <crawdad@fnal.gov> Fri, 20 September 1996 16:19 UTC

Received: from cnri by ietf.org id aa28689; 20 Sep 96 12:19 EDT
Received: from neptune.hq.tis.com by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa03857; 20 Sep 96 12:19 EDT
Received: from neptune.tis.com by neptune.TIS.COM id aa25680; 20 Sep 96 11:53 EDT
Received: from relay.hq.tis.com by neptune.TIS.COM id aa25653; 20 Sep 96 11:47 EDT
Received: by relay.hq.tis.com; id LAA08570; Fri, 20 Sep 1996 11:50:46 -0400
Received: from sol.hq.tis.com(10.33.1.100) by relay.tis.com via smap (V3.1.1) id xma008557; Fri, 20 Sep 96 11:50:23 -0400
Received: from relay.hq.tis.com by tis.com (4.1/SUN-5.64) id AA16144; Fri, 20 Sep 96 11:49:30 EDT
Received: by relay.hq.tis.com; id LAA08543; Fri, 20 Sep 1996 11:50:12 -0400
Received: from fnal.fnal.gov(131.225.110.17) by relay.tis.com via smap (V3.1.1) id xma008517; Fri, 20 Sep 96 11:50:07 -0400
Received: from munin.fnal.gov ("port 4815"@munin.fnal.gov) by FNAL.FNAL.GOV (PMDF V5.0-5 #3998) id <01I9P6JS626U0022VO@FNAL.FNAL.GOV> for ipsec@tis.com; Fri, 20 Sep 1996 10:52:06 -0600 (CST)
Received: from localhost.fnal.gov by munin.fnal.gov (8.7.3/SMI-4.1-m) id KAA26580; Fri, 20 Sep 1996 10:49:59 -0500 (CDT)
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 10:49:53 -0500
From: Matt Crawford <crawdad@fnal.gov>
Subject: Re: resistance to swamping attacks.
In-Reply-To: "19 Sep 1996 17:00:04 PDT." <"9609200728.aa21538"@neptune.TIS.COM>
To: ipsec@tis.com
Message-Id: <199609201549.KAA26580@munin.fnal.gov>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Face: /RKQi"kntyd}7l)d8n%'Dum<~(aMW3,5g&'NiH5I4Jj|wT:j; Qa$!@A<~/*C:{:MmAQ:o%S /KKi}G4_.||4I[9!{%3]Hd"a*E{<k&QF?d6L7o&zLqb%kXn!!]ykXMKtTiy9#20]$EKP/^Z$T]'P6, 8L#r&mH4PB<ljN,_.=iCpv#N:HIcy5t7{HV:<=g=V?^;-d,J*xkq0r
Sender: ipsec-approval@neptune.tis.com
Precedence: bulk

John Gilmore <gnu@toad.com> says:
> So, my attempt:
>     Assume a system has a normal incoming communications bandwidth of
>     IX, a normal outgoing communications bandwidth of OX, ...  Then:
> 	    The system MUST be able to constructively use ...

I think your conditions are automatically satisfied for any protocol,
if you assume sufficient processing speed in the host.  If you don't
make that assumtion, that you have to specify the assumed processing
speed in some way, in order to get a bound on the computation you
will allow a candidate protocol to require.  And we all know what
happens to assumptions about processing power.
_________________________________________________________
Matt Crawford          crawdad@fnal.gov          Fermilab
  PGP: D5 27 83 7A 25 25 7D FB  09 3C BA 33 71 C4 DA 6A

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