nanog mailing list archives
Re: MD5 proliferation statistics
From: Patrick W.Gilmore <patrick () ianai net>
Date: Thu, 6 May 2004 17:52:16 -0400
On May 6, 2004, at 2:42 PM, Arnold Nipper wrote:
On 06.05.2004 20:03 Steve Gibbard wrote:I'm curious as to what sorts of response rates those who have beenactively contacting peers to ask for MD5 configuration have been getting, as well as whether other networks that have not been being proactive aboutthis have been seeing contact rates similar to ours.At DE-CIX (www.de-cix.net) we have two route-servers (resilient setup). We were not really actively contacting peers (i.e. did not really press them to activate MD5). Our figures (counted per AS not per peering as we have double peerings both on our side as well as on customer side having two+ routers) are: 120 peerings 21 MD5 peerings ratio: 17.5% Better than expected. I told a friend that MD5 peerings would be <10%.
Now I have been pretty vocal about the whole MD5 thing, but I have to say that route-servers are probably not the best indication of MD5-ness. Session which pass traffic get a little higher priority at most organizations.
Unfortunately, my organization was not passive until we got to see what the threat actually was, so our numbers are not useful. Would any traffic-carrying-organization care to discuss their numbers?
And anyone want to admit seeing an RST-style attack? Any attack which MD5 would have blocked?
-- TTFN, patrick
Current thread:
- MD5 proliferation statistics Steve Gibbard (May 06)
- Re: MD5 proliferation statistics Arnold Nipper (May 06)
- Re: MD5 proliferation statistics Patrick W . Gilmore (May 06)
- Re: MD5 proliferation statistics John Kristoff (May 07)
- Re: MD5 proliferation statistics Patrick W . Gilmore (May 06)
- Re: MD5 proliferation statistics Stephen J. Wilcox (May 07)
- Re: MD5 proliferation statistics Arnold Nipper (May 06)