nanog mailing list archives
Re: BGP Experiment
From: Töma Gavrichenkov <ximaera () gmail com>
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2019 21:08:23 +0300
On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 9:05 PM Aled Morris via NANOG <nanog () nanog org> wrote:
I'd go further and say that as long as you're connected to the Internet, your equipment better be resilient when receiving packets with any combination of bits set, RFC compliant or not.
Well, here, when you receive this particular attribute and if you're vulnerable, your equipment automatically gets disconnected from the Internet, so the issue kinda solves itself. -- Töma
Current thread:
- Re: BGP Experiment, (continued)
- Re: BGP Experiment Töma Gavrichenkov (Jan 09)
- Re: BGP Experiment Töma Gavrichenkov (Jan 09)
- Re: BGP Experiment Italo Cunha (Jan 10)
- Re: BGP Experiment Italo Cunha (Jan 22)
- Re: BGP Experiment Ben Cooper (Jan 24)
- Re: BGP Experiment Italo Cunha (Jan 23)
- Re: BGP Experiment Job Snijders (Jan 23)
- Re: BGP Experiment Eric Kuhnke (Jan 23)
- RE: BGP Experiment Naslund, Steve (Jan 23)
- Re: BGP Experiment Aled Morris via NANOG (Jan 23)
- Re: BGP Experiment Töma Gavrichenkov (Jan 23)
- RE: BGP Experiment Naslund, Steve (Jan 23)
- RE: BGP Experiment Naslund, Steve (Jan 23)
- Re: BGP Experiment Ben Cooper (Jan 24)
- Re: BGP Experiment Töma Gavrichenkov (Jan 23)
- Re: BGP Experiment Nick Hilliard (Jan 23)
- Re: BGP Experiment Filip Hruska (Jan 23)
- RE: BGP Experiment Naslund, Steve (Jan 23)
- Re: BGP Experiment Owen DeLong (Jan 23)
- Re: BGP Experiment William Herrin (Jan 23)
- Re: BGP Experiment Christoffer Hansen (Jan 23)
- Re: BGP Experiment Nikolas Geyer (Jan 23)