nanog mailing list archives
Re: SYN floods continue
From: Jim Forster <forster () cisco com>
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1996 09:17:59 -0700
Again, the rule is "dont accept packets from an interface if there's no route for their source addresses pointing back to the same interface". Note that that route does not have to be the best one -- just that the router gets it from somewhere.
Without discussing it with the right folks here ahead of time, I suspect we could do this at good speed in some, but not all routers, in our product line. The solution I have in mind would not be suitable for some places in the net. We'd put the extra checks in the slow path which Curtis hates so much, and then use our 'flow-switching' cache, which is keyed by src/dest adresses & ports. So packets which fail the source address scrutiny in the slow path aren't put in the flow-switching cache. I can't recall if we cache negatives there, but in any event apparently the attacks involve SYN flows on the order of 100's of PPS, which might go through the slow path OK. BTW, I believe the criterion Vadim suggest is similar to that used in RPF Multicast flooding. Now the big question: is this useful in routers carrying a default route? -- Jim - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Current thread:
- Re: SYN floods continueg, (continued)
- Re: SYN floods continueg Avi Freedman (Sep 11)
- Re: SYN floods continue Steven L. Johnson (Sep 11)
- Re: SYN floods continueh Avi Freedman (Sep 12)
- Re: SYN floods continue Sean Donelan (Sep 11)
- Re[2]: SYN floods continue Pat Calhoun (Sep 11)
- Re: SYN floods continue Vadim Antonov (Sep 11)
- Re: SYN floods continue Justin W. Newton (Sep 11)
- Re: SYN floods continue Vern Paxson (Sep 11)
- Re: SYN floods continue alex (Sep 11)
- Re: SYN floods continue Vadim Antonov (Sep 11)
- Re: SYN floods continue Jim Forster (Sep 13)
- Re: SYN floods continue Perry E. Metzger (Sep 13)
- Re: SYN floods continue Jim Forster (Sep 13)
