On 10/05/2018 04:47 PM, Sean Donelan wrote:
On Thu, 4 Oct 2018, b...@theworld.com wrote:
Just to try to squeeze something worthwhile out of these reports...
I wonder, if there were a real alert, what the odds are that one
wouldn't hear about it in 1 minute, 5 minutes, etc even if they didn't
pe
On Thu, 4 Oct 2018, b...@theworld.com wrote:
Just to try to squeeze something worthwhile out of these reports...
I wonder, if there were a real alert, what the odds are that one
wouldn't hear about it in 1 minute, 5 minutes, etc even if they didn't
personally get it.
What happens when people d
On 10/5/18 3:16 AM, Mark Andrews wrote:
So require frag 0 to have what you require to do the filtering. Most stacks
send maximal sized initial fragments up to 1280 bytes. For DNS the UDP header
will be there as there is at least 8 bytes of fragmented packet. Additionally
reassembly attacks ar
This is an automated weekly mailing describing the state of the Internet
Routing Table as seen from APNIC's router in Japan.
The posting is sent to APOPS, NANOG, AfNOG, SANOG, PacNOG, SAFNOG
TZNOG, MENOG, BJNOG, SDNOG, CMNOG, LACNOG, IRNOG and the RIPE Routing WG.
Daily listings are sent to bgp-s
> I wonder, if there were a real alert, what the odds are that one
> wouldn't hear about it in 1 minute, 5 minutes, etc even if they didn't
> personally get it.
>
> Obviously edge cases are possible, you were deep in a cave with your
> soccer team, but there must be mathematical modeling of that s
> On 5 Oct 2018, at 4:22 pm, Brandon Martin wrote:
>
> On 10/5/18 1:53 AM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>> If you don’t want fragmented IPv6 UDP responses use
>> server ::/0 { edns-udp-size 1232; };
>> That’s 1280 - IPv6 header - UDP header. Anything bigger than that can
>> theoretically
>> be f
6 matches
Mail list logo
