From owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG  Wed Apr 21 13:24:54 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 A6F1D16A4CE
	for <freebsd-security@freebsd.org>;
	Wed, 21 Apr 2004 13:24:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bergerie.agneau.org (bergerie.agneau.org [213.41.153.121])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE1D543D1F
	for <freebsd-security@freebsd.org>;
	Wed, 21 Apr 2004 13:24:53 -0700 (PDT)	(envelope-from lolo@agneau.org)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by bergerie.agneau.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0FD5F43D
	for <freebsd-security@freebsd.org>;
	Wed, 21 Apr 2004 22:24:52 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by bergerie.agneau.org (Postfix, from userid 500)
	id E096B43A; Wed, 21 Apr 2004 22:24:51 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 22:24:51 +0200
From: Laurent Frigault <lfrigault@agneau.org>
To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org
Message-ID: <20040421202451.GA9515@obelix.bergerie.agneau.org>
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
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <6.0.3.0.0.20040421161217.05453308@209.112.4.2>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2i
X-Powered-By: UUCP
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at agneau.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 20:24:54 -0000

On Wed, Apr 21, 2004 at 04:14:46PM -0400, Mike Tancsa wrote:
> >        Well, not every BGP sessions are established between directly 
> >connected interfaces. This would not work with "multi-hop BGP" sessions :-)
> 
> Thanks, I realize that, especially with iBGP. However for directly
> connected eBGP peers, the question still stands.

Yes. This should be better handled by quagga/zebra .

Regards,
-- 
Laurent Frigault | <url:http://www.agneau.org/>
If NT is the answer, you didn't understand the question.