|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 22:45:21 -0500 (EST)
From: Vijay Gill <wrath@cs.umbc.edu>
To: Paul Ferguson <ferguson@cisco.com>
Cc: "Rubens Kuhl Jr." <rkuhljr@uol.com.br>, nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <4.2.2.20000228223101.00a2af00@lint.cisco.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.95.1000228223908.17672D-100000@mailserver-ng.cs.umbc.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Mon, 28 Feb 2000, Paul Ferguson wrote:
> Again, forget about flow-switching in any context except for
> tracing back attackers.
Correct.
> If you want the functionality to lower the threshold of DoS pain,
> CEF is your baby.
When it is working, yes.
> This is an operational forum, yes? Where is the input from the
> (current) operators?
We're still waiting on the hidden commands to be documented as mentioned
below.
http://www.zdnet.com/intweek/stories/news/0,4164,2435950,00.html
{quote}
Routers from Cisco and other vendors have the ability to detect the
signature patterns of a denial-of-service attack, and the routers can
filter out that traffic, Farnsworth said.
\end{quote}
/vijay
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |