[69987] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Alternate and/or hidden infrastructure addresses (BGP/TCP RST/SYN vulnerability)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Patrick W.Gilmore)
Fri Apr 23 09:10:39 2004
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0404231103400.25158-100000@netcore.fi>
Cc: Patrick W.Gilmore <patrick@ianai.net>
From: Patrick W.Gilmore <patrick@ianai.net>
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 09:09:57 -0400
To: nanog@merit.edu
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Apr 23, 2004, at 4:07 AM, Pekka Savola wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Apr 2004, Patrick W.Gilmore wrote:
>> Hrmmm, would the GTSM work with loopback peering? ISTR it allowed a
>> TTL of 254, which should make it to the loopback interface.
>
> Only flawed implementations have to use TTL of 254 when you have a
> session between two adjacent loopbacks. But I think those still
> exist...
>
> (TTL should only be decremented when _forwarding_, and I don't think
> you could argue that you need to _forward_ a packet from your ingress
> interface to your _loopback_ interface..)
Well, if that were the case, then you wouldn't need multi-hop to do
loopback peering.
--
TTFN,
patrick
