On Thu, 3 Feb 2011 10:17:12 -0500, RJ Atkinson rja.li...@gmail.com
wrote:
In particular, a number of domains connected to the public Internet,
including a number of commercial firms, are concerned about use of
covert channels by their adversaries (e.g. to steal IPR, to probe
interior network
On Mon, 17 Jan 2011 12:55:53 -0700, Shane Amante
sh...@castlepoint.net wrote:
Thomas,
On Jan 17, 2011, at 10:08 MST, Thomas Narten wrote:
The point being, an attacker doesn't have to guess the actual Flow
Labels that are being in use, but just come up with way to generate
traffic that ECMP
On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 14:45:05 +1300, Brian E Carpenter
brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com wrote:
Fred,
I'm confused. We've been talking for months about recommending
pseudo-random flow label values as inputs to hash functions,
precisely to allow scaleable and stateless load balancing and ECMP.
I
On Wed, 15 Dec 2010 14:14:02 +1300, Brian E Carpenter
brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
The authors have received one off-list comment on this version,
requesting additional clarification of the text associated with
this recommendation:
2. A network domain MUST NOT forward
On Wed, 2010-11-17 at 09:52 +0100, Hagen Paul Pfeifer wrote:
On Tue, 16 Nov 2010 20:58:39 -0500, Steven Blake wrote:
This does not address Ran's comment: why would we ever need a new
extension header? Why aren't the Hop-by-Hop Options and Destination
Options extension headers sufficient
On Wed, 17 Nov 2010 01:45:27 +0100, Hagen Paul Pfeifer ha...@jauu.net
wrote:
* Hing-Kam (Kam) Lam | 2010-11-17 05:23:47 [+0530]:
The draft does not do that. I dont know which version you have been
reading. You should read draft-ietf-6man-exthdr and
draft-bhatia-6man-update-ipv6-ext-hdr to get
On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 18:58:20 -0400, Suresh Krishnan
suresh.krish...@ericsson.com wrote:
Given all that, as Brian said, one class of potential applications that
will not work well with a shorterflow label are the ones where longer
is better. e.g. The flow label as nonce proposal. This is
On Wed, 08 Sep 2010 13:18:41 +1200, Brian E Carpenter
brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
The authors of draft-carpenter-6man-flow-update (now also
including Shane Amante) are working on a new version. One
fundamental issue that has come up is about the (lack of)
security properties of
On Wed, 2010-09-08 at 11:22 -0600, Shane Amante wrote:
Steve,
On Sep 7, 2010, at 14:17 MDT, Steven Blake wrote:
On Tue, 7 Sep 2010 13:58:21 -0600, Shane Amante sh...@castlepoint.net
wrote:
[snip]
With that said, I don't think this algorithm is necessarily ideal. The FL
value
On Tue, 7 Sep 2010 13:58:21 -0600, Shane Amante sh...@castlepoint.net
wrote:
Hi Fernando,
I have a question on:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gont-6man-flowlabel-security-00
Unless I misunderstand something, you're proposing that a flow-label be
constructed using the IPv6 Source
On Tue, 17 Aug 2010 09:06:23 -0500, George, Wes E [NTK]
wesley.e.geo...@sprint.com wrote:
draft-blake-ipv6-flow-label-nonce-02 is expired and I haven't heard much
effort to push it forward again. IMO it would be more helpful to
consider
security implications and evaluate your solution with
On Wed, 4 Aug 2010 12:23:05 +0200, Rémi Després remi.desp...@free.fr
wrote:
Hi Fred,
Le 4 août 2010 à 10:13, Fred Baker a écrit :
intellectually, end to end signaling might make sense. If so, it
belongs
in the end-to-end headers.
+1
More importantly, who's using it?
If using it end
On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 10:08:34 +0200, Rémi Després remi.desp...@free.fr
wrote:
Le 21 avr. 2010 à 23:17, Brian E Carpenter a écrit :
On 2010-04-21 20:50, Rémi Després wrote:
Hi Brian,
I wonder what you think of what I answered to James on another
discussion thread.
I agree. I think that
On Thu, 15 Apr 2010 11:22:09 -0400, Joel M. Halpern
j...@joelhalpern.com
wrote:
The one obvious conclusion here is that if we want hosts to actually set
flow labels, then we are largely preempting network modification of
those flow labels. Whatever setting we want to allow, it would have to
On Mon, 2005-04-25 at 18:23 +0300, Ran Liebermann wrote:
The only reason for the value of be kept e2e is if this value should
signal something to routers in the path of the flow (the reason why
not including the value in upper layers) and still be used by the
destination for something (for
On Mon, 2004-02-09 at 12:22, Tim Chown wrote:
On Mon, Feb 09, 2004 at 09:16:49AM -0800, Alain Durand wrote:
Billing recurrent fees is a way to guaranty that the database will be
maintainable.
With 1,000 billion entries, it might also become a large database...
That's why proof of
16 matches
Mail list logo
