Re: TCP end-to-end Semantics

From: Alhussein Abouzeid ([email protected])
Date: Fri Jan 12 2001 - 23:54:16 EST

Next message: Fred Baker: "Re: TCP end-to-end Semantics"

Previous message: Lloyd Wood: "Re: TCP end-to-end Semantics"
In reply to: Lloyd Wood: "Re: TCP end-to-end Semantics"
Next in thread: Manish Karir: "spoofing standard??"
Next in thread: [email protected]: "Re: TCP end-to-end Semantics"
Reply: Manish Karir: "spoofing standard??"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

I think it is a good idea assuming the spoofer will respect it (which
would be expected from a 'good' spoofer).

-Hussein.

> On Wed, 10 Jan 2001, Mingyan Liu wrote:

> How about we use an IP option indicating "spoofing (not) allowed",
> similar to "no fragmentation", and require that the spoofer conform to
> it, will that make sense? (This then will not require user's knowledge
> but the application writers'...)

Next message: Fred Baker: "Re: TCP end-to-end Semantics"
Previous message: Lloyd Wood: "Re: TCP end-to-end Semantics"
In reply to: Lloyd Wood: "Re: TCP end-to-end Semantics"
Next in thread: Manish Karir: "spoofing standard??"
Next in thread: [email protected]: "Re: TCP end-to-end Semantics"
Reply: Manish Karir: "spoofing standard??"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jan 13 2001 - 00:30:40 EST