Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2001 02:10:49 -0700
From: Colin Percival <cperciva@sfu.ca>
To: Darren Reed <avalon@coombs.anu.edu.au>
Cc: dr@kyx.net (Dragos Ruiu), silby@silby.com (Mike Silbersack), cjclark@alum.mit.edu, avalon@coombs.anu.edu.au (Darren Reed), Yonatan@xpert.com (Yonatan Bokovza), freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG ('freebsd-security@freebsd.org')
Subject: Re: FW: Small TCP packets == very large overhead == DoS?
Message-ID: <5.0.0.25.1.20010709020039.04304240@popserver.sfu.ca>
In-Reply-To: <200107090855.SAA12298@caligula.anu.edu.au>
References: <0107082333531I.08020@smp.kyx.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 06:55 PM 7/9/2001 +1000, Darren Reed wrote: >In some mail from Dragos Ruiu, sie said: > > where for some applications the representatives argued that 64 bytes was > > too large a packetsize (this particular debate was over 32 or 64 byte > cells, > > and oddly enough they agreed on 48 for no particular reason other > > than to stop arguing :-). > >Err, wasn't the result 53 ? I believe the argument was over the amount of data per cell, not the total cell size; with 53 byte cells there are 5 bytes of header and 48 bytes of data. But in any case... shouldn't this be on -net? I think the question of security was put to rest several emails ago. Colin Percival To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?5.0.0.25.1.20010709020039.04304240>