nanog mailing list archives
Re: [Re: [Re: M$SQL cleanup incentives]]
From: alex () yuriev com
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2003 11:47:24 -0500 (EST)
BB> DNS clients will eventually timeout and fall back to another BB> server, so any problems would be transient, but the packets BB> were legit, right? Stateful packet filters are nice. Properly written, they protect both inbound and outbound traffic and need to track very little state.
Stateful packet filtering by C sitting between A and B is fallacy since in order for C to make an intelligent decision it may need to know the details of every possible communication protocol used by A and B. Alex
Current thread:
- Re: [Re: [Re: M$SQL cleanup incentives]] Joshua Smith (Feb 21)
- Re: [Re: [Re: M$SQL cleanup incentives]] David Barak (Feb 21)
- Re: [Re: [Re: M$SQL cleanup incentives]] Kevin Oberman (Feb 21)
- Re: [Re: [Re: M$SQL cleanup incentives]] Johannes Ullrich (Feb 21)
- Re: [Re: [Re: M$SQL cleanup incentives]] Kevin Oberman (Feb 21)
- Re: [Re: [Re: M$SQL cleanup incentives]] Kevin Oberman (Feb 21)
- Re: [Re: [Re: M$SQL cleanup incentives]] David Barak (Feb 21)
- Re: [Re: [Re: M$SQL cleanup incentives]] Bryan Bradsby (Feb 21)
- Re: [Re: [Re: M$SQL cleanup incentives]] E.B. Dreger (Feb 21)
- Re: [Re: [Re: M$SQL cleanup incentives]] Doug Barton (Feb 21)
- Re: [Re: [Re: M$SQL cleanup incentives]] alex (Feb 22)
- Re: [Re: [Re: M$SQL cleanup incentives]] E.B. Dreger (Feb 21)