I think this may be of interest. It was offlist, so I won't identify the
author I am responding to.
> [off-list]
>
> On Monday, September 24, 2007 06:25:49 PM -0400 Dean Anderson
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I. Harm only possible for ENDSO; Update RFC 2671 Instead
> >
> > The max
Dean Anderson wrote:
I think this may be of interest. It was offlist, so I won't identify the
author I am responding to.
[Did you think to perhaps ask the author first? He/she may have been
willing to be identified...]
I. Harm only possible for ENDSO; Update RFC 2671 Instead
The maximum no
On Tue, 2 Oct 2007, Brian Dickson wrote:
> Dean Anderson wrote:
> > I think this may be of interest. It was offlist, so I won't identify
> > the author I am responding to.
> >
> [Did you think to perhaps ask the author first? He/she may have been
> willing to be identified...]
The author is no
On Tue, 2 Oct 2007 21:59:33 -0400 (EDT)
Dean Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In fact, using authority servers is _less_ risk to the abuser, because
> to compose the reflector attacks, s/he has to crack into a server,
> craft a record,
One can create a large record anwhere in the namespace.
Dean Anderson wrote:
The load balancer is really just a special kind of stateful NAT.
No.
Load balancers can load balance, without any translation being done at all.
And a load balancer is by definition doing *anycast*.
The same address is used as a destination, and the packets are delivere
