in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Re: SYN floods (was: does history repeat itself?)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Sharif Torpis)
Tue Sep 10 14:30:18 1996
From: "Sharif Torpis" <email@example.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 11:26:08 -0700
In-Reply-To: Alexis Rosen <firstname.lastname@example.org>
"Re: Re: SYN floods (was: does history repeat itself?)" (Sep 10, 2:07pm)
To: Alexis Rosen <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org (Alec H. Peterson)
Cc: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com
On Sep 10, 2:07pm, Alexis Rosen wrote:
> Subject: Re: Re: SYN floods (was: does history repeat itself?)
> Also true. As I said before, I don't know about the Ascends, but I do know
> that the Xylogics boxes we use have the capability but probably not the
> capacity. When all ports are connected at 28.8, CPU usage can hover in
> the high 80% range. Adding filters would probably be a bad idea.
> That's why I was talking about filtering at a router just upstream from
> the dial-access box.
> FWIW, even with a thousand very busy modems, I'm pretty sure that even a
> small cisco is up to the job. They just don't generate all that much traffic.
>-- End of excerpt from Alexis Rosen
The Ascends can also do this but I agree that you wouldn't want to filter at
the NAS. Logistical reasons are reason enough to filter at an upstream router
where the dialup traffic is aggregated.
Sharif Torpis (firstname.lastname@example.org) \ | / P A C I F I C
Pacific Bell Internet -->*<-- B E L L
Network Engineering / | \ I N T E R N E T
San Francisco, CA USA