On Sat, 13 Jan 2001, Fred Baker wrote:
> At 01:34 AM 1/13/01 -0800, Alhussein Abouzeid wrote:
> >ECN *is* an option. TCP may or may not use it.
>
> we are somehow using entirely different definitions of the word "option". I
> am using it in the sense the word is used in RFC 791 and 793; you are using
> it, I think, in the sense "something that is optional".
>
> I'm not convinced I know what bits you're going to find in the IP or TCP
> headers that are left for doing "something that is optional", but if you
> can, be my guest.
actually there can be any number of ways of doing this as long as the
consensus and approval of the ietf is there...
for example:
-the protocol field could be used to identify the packets to be spoofed.
so we would have TCP, or TCP-SPOOF to distinguish between the two.
(I personally think this is a good idea...if what spoofing does is
break traditional TCP then why call it TCP..just call it something
else...)
-a particular combination of the flags: say for example DF combined with
SYN combined with FIN but no ACK will mean -dont spoof
(bad idea I know..but once again....feasible..)
-or how about a certain combination of bits in the TOS field...
(after all is'nt the purpose of the ToS field to be able to identify
flows of different types for processing different....so we can specify
that say ToS value of x shall mean the flow should not be spoofed or
should be spoofed)
anyways.....just some random thoughts...
manish
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jan 15 2001 - 16:39:08 EST