Subject: Re: [tcpm] syn flooding draft

From: Fernando Gont <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 09 May 2006 01:42:52 -0300

At 16:53 26/04/2006, Mark Allman wrote:

>has been discussed a bit on the list.  The vibe Ted and I have picked up
>is that folks think its a good document to have around (even though
>several folks have identified possible areas for improvement).  So,
>we're asking if folks think that TCPM should take on this document as a
>WG item.  As the document states, it's targeted as informational and a
>guess at a timeframe (a WAG between Wes, Ted and I) is 6 months.
>
>If you think this ought to be on our plate (or not), please say so.
>(Lack of positive response will meet with the same decision as an
>overwhelmingly negative response.)

SYN-flooding attacks have not yet been addressed in any RFC, so it 
would be interesting to have a document that describes the problem, 
the possible counter-measures, and their pros and cons.

I think this draft should be adopted as a WG document.

Kindest regards,

--
Fernando Gont
e-mail: [email-masked] || [email-masked]
PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1

_______________________________________________
tcpm mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 23:36:03 +0300 (EEST)

On Tue, 9 May 2006, Fernando Gont wrote:
> SYN-flooding attacks have not yet been addressed in any RFC, so it would be 
> interesting to have a document that describes the problem, the possible 
> counter-measures, and their pros and cons.
>

FWIW, I agree with this reasoning, and support the document going 
forward, as I said in last June:

http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tcpm/current/msg01331.html

(I haven't re-checked since -00 whether the comments were addressed..)

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings