From owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG  Wed Apr 21 13:20:28 2004
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBCB516A564
	for <freebsd-security@freebsd.org>;
	Wed, 21 Apr 2004 13:20:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from orhi.sarenet.es (orhi.sarenet.es [192.148.167.5])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80B4143D1F
	for <freebsd-security@freebsd.org>;
	Wed, 21 Apr 2004 13:20:28 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from borjamar@sarenet.es)
Received: from [192.168.2.3] (unknown [212.81.200.214])
	by orhi.sarenet.es (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id F14FE7A31A4; Wed, 21 Apr 2004 22:20:26 +0200 (MEST)
In-Reply-To: <6.0.3.0.0.20040421161217.05453308@209.112.4.2>
References: <6.0.3.0.0.20040420125557.06b10d48@209.112.4.2>
	<xzp65buh5fa.fsf@dwp.des.no> <6.0.3.0.0.20040420144001.0723ab80@209.112.4.2>
	<200404201332.40827.dr@kyx.net> <20040421111003.GB19640@lum.celabo.org>
	<6.0.3.0.0.20040421121715.04547510@209.112.4.2>
	<20040421165454.GB20049@lum.celabo.org>
	<6.0.3.0.0.20040421132605.0901bb40@209.112.4.2>
	<48FCF8AA-93CF-11D8-9C50-000393C94468@sarenet.es>
	<6.0.3.0.0.20040421161217.05453308@209.112.4.2>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v613)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Message-Id: <539B9B0C-93D1-11D8-9C50-000393C94468@sarenet.es>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Borja Marcos <borjamar@sarenet.es>
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 22:20:26 +0200
To: Mike Tancsa <mike@sentex.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.613)
cc: freebsd-security@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Other possible protection against RST/SYN attacks (was Re: TCP
	RST attack
X-BeenThere: freebsd-security@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security issues [members-only posting]
	<freebsd-security.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-security>,
	<mailto:freebsd-security-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-security>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-security@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-security-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-security>,
	<mailto:freebsd-security-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 20:20:28 -0000

> Thanks, I realize that, especially with iBGP. However for directly 
> connected eBGP peers, the question still stands.
>
> What side effects if any are there?  Why is the default 64 and not 
> some  other number like 255... I am sure the answer is out there, I 
> just need to find the question so I can cram it into google ;-)

	I can only think that it is a reasonable default. With a ttl of 200, 
for example, a routing loop would waste a lot of bandwidth for each 
undeliverable packet.



	Borja.