IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tcpm] ICMP attacks draft (issue 1): hard errors -> soft errors (in synchronized states)

Jakob Heitz <jheitz@redback.com> Thu, 29 September 2005 17:39 UTC

Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EL2N9-000394-As; Thu, 29 Sep 2005 13:39:07 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EL2N7-00038u-QY for tcpm@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 29 Sep 2005 13:39:05 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA24459 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Sep 2005 13:39:04 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from prattle.redback.com ([155.53.12.9]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EL2Uo-00005D-E3 for tcpm@ietf.org; Thu, 29 Sep 2005 13:47:03 -0400
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by prattle.redback.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 777FB68B0B4 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Sep 2005 10:38:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from prattle.redback.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (prattle [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 19868-06 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Sep 2005 10:38:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (login004.redback.com [155.53.12.57]) by prattle.redback.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A24968B0B1 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Sep 2005 10:38:46 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <433C2573.40904@redback.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 10:33:39 -0700
From: Jakob Heitz <jheitz@redback.com>
Organization: Redback Networks, Software Development
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (Windows/20050317)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: tcpm@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [tcpm] ICMP attacks draft (issue 1): hard errors -> soft errors (in synchronized states)
References: <6.2.0.14.0.20050923075214.0428faa8@pop.frh.utn.edu.ar> <433411E2.3020005@isi.edu> <6.2.0.14.0.20050923125332.04320008@pop.frh.utn.edu.ar> <4334345F.2060301@isi.edu> <6.2.0.14.0.20050927013116.03fedc70@pop.frh.utn.edu.ar> <4339AB09.70501@isi.edu> <6.2.0.14.0.20050928034642.08012bf0@pop.frh.utn.edu.ar> <433BDFB8.4090407@isi.edu> <6.2.0.14.0.20050929120406.03d79008@pop.frh.utn.edu.ar> <433C0C47.3080207@isi.edu> <6.2.0.14.0.20050929125335.03d67e90@pop.frh.utn.edu.ar>
In-Reply-To: <6.2.0.14.0.20050929125335.03d67e90@pop.frh.utn.edu.ar>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at redback.com
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 68c8cc8a64a9d0402e43b8eee9fc4199
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group <tcpm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:tcpm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: tcpm-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: tcpm-bounces@ietf.org

Fernando Gont wrote:
> At 12:46 p.m. 29/09/2005, Joe Touch wrote:
>> That presumes I think that there is a viable way to secure ICMP, which I
>> don't so far.
> 
> 
> No. That means you are making an argument for a protocol which is 
> already unreliable.

...but it's useful.
IP and UDP are unreliable too, but they're useful.


_______________________________________________
tcpm mailing list
tcpm@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email