> Nate Williams wrote: > > Except that it's acting as a router, and as such there is no 'setup' > > except for the one he is using to configure/monitor the firewall via > > SSH. > > > > In essence, a no-op in a dedicated firewall setup. > > He doesn't want just a dedicated firewall, since it won't save > him from an attack like the ones he's getting. > > The only reasonable way to shed load is at L4/L7 interaction; > if all he's doing is L3, then his firewall will likely not > save him. > > According to most of the stuff he posted, though, he's running > L4 rules in his firewall (peeking into TCP packets). > > A Netscreen is a stateful firewall, which will (in effect) be > providing applicaiton layer proxies for the connections... this > is also the way a load balancer acts, in order to shed load by > limiting simultaneous connections (L4/L7). > > > In any case, he's got something else strange going on, because > his load under attack, according to his numbers, never gets above > the load you'd expect on 10Mbit old-style ethernet, so he's got > something screwed up; probably, he has a loop in his rules, and > a packet gets trapped and reprocessed over and over again (a > friend of mine had this problem back in early December). If I remember correctly he has less then 10Mbit uplink and a lot of count rules for client accounting. It is reason I recommend him to use userland accounting. And as far as I understand a lot of count rules is the reason for trouble.
I saw something similar a lot ago at the begin of my career :-) -- @BABOLO http://links.ru/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message