On 17 Aug 2006, at 21:45, Pekka Savola wrote:
[...]
Enhancement Requests haven't gotten through, but maybe gripes on
nanog will :-(
IME, griping about something on a mailing list, while typically
getting you an email from a techie at the company concerned
(especially if the gripe was fero
On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 05:14:57PM -0700, Merike Kaeo wrote:
>
> I don't think that's a fair assumption. A few providers I talked to
> for a security current practiced document I am writing said they were
> deploying it between BGP peers and I recently asked for more
> clarification from s
ssage
From: Pekka Savola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: John Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
Sent: Friday, 18 August, 2006 2:15:31 AM
Subject: Re: GTSM - Do you use it?
On Thu, 17 Aug 2006, John Smith wrote:
I would like to know if operators use GTSM techniques with BGP
Then is it fair to assume that operators are not using it?
- Original Message
From: Pekka Savola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: John Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
Sent: Friday, 18 August, 2006 2:15:31 AM
Subject: Re: GTSM - Do you use it?
On Thu, 17 Aug 2006, John
On Thu, 17 Aug 2006, John Smith wrote:
I would like to know if operators use GTSM techniques with BGP and
other routing protocols today? Is any at the perimeter of the
routing domain deployed? I would believe that GTSM can provide
protection against attacks more than a hop away and thus can sa
Hi,
I would like to know if operators use GTSM techniques with BGP and other
routing protocols today? Is any at the perimeter of the routing domain
deployed? I would believe that GTSM can provide protection against attacks more
than a hop away and thus can save against a lot of potential Dos
