Re: GTSM-bis status and TCP RST resistance
Alex Zinin <zinin@psg.com> Sun, 05 March 2006 13:00 UTC
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FFsr3-0007wL-ON; Sun, 05 Mar 2006 08:00:57 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FFsr2-0007us-F0 for rtgwg@ietf.org; Sun, 05 Mar 2006 08:00:56 -0500
Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FFsr1-00058n-6g for rtgwg@ietf.org; Sun, 05 Mar 2006 08:00:56 -0500
Received: from [147.28.0.62] (helo=usmovnazinin.alcatel.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.60 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <zinin@psg.com>) id 1FFsr0-000Jif-Pe; Sun, 05 Mar 2006 13:00:54 +0000
Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2006 05:00:42 -0800
From: Alex Zinin <zinin@psg.com>
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
Message-ID: <338827977.20060305050042@psg.com>
To: Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0601211459270.21826@netcore.fi>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0601211459270.21826@netcore.fi>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: 1.2 (+)
X-Scan-Signature: 93238566e09e6e262849b4f805833007
Cc: rtgwg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: GTSM-bis status and TCP RST resistance
X-BeenThere: rtgwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Alex Zinin <zinin@psg.com>
List-Id: rtgwg.ietf.org
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg>, <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:rtgwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg>, <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: rtgwg-bounces@ietf.org
I pinged Dave on this, and he would be happy to work on this if there's interest in the WG. -- Alex http://www.psg.com/~zinin Saturday, January 21, 2006, 5:05:24 AM, Pekka Savola wrote: > Hi, > It has been awfully quiet on the GTSMbis front lately > (draft-ietf-rtgwg-rfc3682bis-05.txt). > I think this is important work and we should be pushing it for > Standards Track on high priority. > One particular area where the doc may need more text is dealing with > TCP RSTs. Do we assume that GTSM-enabled peers also send TCP RST's > (related to GTSM-enabled sessions) with TTL=255? Note that if the > system doesn't use TTL=255 for default (current IANA default TTL is > 64), the host kernel will need a modification. Do we verify that on > receipt? If not, how do we make GTSM resistant to TCP RST attacks? _______________________________________________ Rtgwg mailing list Rtgwg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
- GTSM-bis status and TCP RST resistance Pekka Savola
- Re: GTSM-bis status and TCP RST resistance Alex Zinin