On Fri, 1 Apr 2011, GP Wooden wrote:
I wonder on the carrier would survive a DoS attack ...
I'm not sure about that, but we know that, if a Sullenberger unit has been installed, a large aircraft can survive a DoS attack perpetrated by the avian carrier. -- Brandon Ross AIM: BrandonNRoss ICQ: 2269442 Skype: brandonross Yahoo: BrandonNRoss
I was thinking today would be a good day to write an RFC for "fractional DHCP" where end-users can get issued say 1/64 of an v4 IP, say 155.229.10.20:1024-2047. Other users on the same DSLAM, etc behind the carrier NAT would have other shares of the same public IP. :) On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 12:19 PM, Brandon Ross <bross@pobox.com> wrote:
On Fri, 1 Apr 2011, GP Wooden wrote:
I wonder on the carrier would survive a DoS attack ...
I'm not sure about that, but we know that, if a Sullenberger unit has been installed, a large aircraft can survive a DoS attack perpetrated by the avian carrier.
-- Brandon Ross AIM: BrandonNRoss ICQ: 2269442 Skype: brandonross Yahoo: BrandonNRoss
On Fri, 1 Apr 2011, Dorn Hetzel wrote:
I was thinking today would be a good day to write an RFC for "fractional DHCP" where end-users can get issued say 1/64 of an v4 IP, say 155.229.10.20:1024-2047. Other users on the same DSLAM, etc behind the carrier NAT would have other shares of the same public IP. :)
Would the end-user get both the TCP and UDP ports from their assigned range? Also, how would you handle ICMP/ESP/etc... or would those be 'free with the purchase of..."? jms
I'm thinking both TCP and UDP, and for ICMP don't NAT's use the sequence number field to keep them separate ? On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 1:08 PM, Justin M. Streiner <streiner@cluebyfour.org>wrote:
On Fri, 1 Apr 2011, Dorn Hetzel wrote:
I was thinking today would be a good day to write an RFC for "fractional
DHCP" where end-users can get issued say 1/64 of an v4 IP, say 155.229.10.20:1024-2047. Other users on the same DSLAM, etc behind the carrier NAT would have other shares of the same public IP. :)
Would the end-user get both the TCP and UDP ports from their assigned range? Also, how would you handle ICMP/ESP/etc... or would those be 'free with the purchase of..."?
jms
On Apr 1, 2011, at 1:28 PM, Dorn Hetzel wrote:
I'm thinking both TCP and UDP, and for ICMP don't NAT's use the sequence number field to keep them separate ? <SNIP/>
In my experience, the Avian Carriers usually eat the NATs. James R. Cutler james.cutler@consultant.com
On 1 Apr 2011, at 17:47, Dorn Hetzel wrote:
I was thinking today would be a good day to write an RFC for "fractional DHCP" where end-users can get issued say 1/64 of an v4 IP, say 155.229.10.20:1024-2047. Other users on the same DSLAM, etc behind the carrier NAT would have other shares of the same public IP. :)
Hi, I'm not sure if this is an attempt at a continuation of the April Fools meme, or a serious idea, but this has kind already been thought of. :-) https://mice.cs.columbia.edu/getTechreport.php?techreportID=560 It's a nice illustration that the only idea which doesn't suck post exhaustion[0], is IPv6. Andy [0] i.e., now.
Be careful what you wish for: <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ymbk-aplusp> On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 6:47 PM, Dorn Hetzel <dorn@hetzel.org> wrote:
I was thinking today would be a good day to write an RFC for "fractional DHCP" where end-users can get issued say 1/64 of an v4 IP, say 155.229.10.20:1024-2047. Other users on the same DSLAM, etc behind the carrier NAT would have other shares of the same public IP. :)
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 12:19 PM, Brandon Ross <bross@pobox.com> wrote:
On Fri, 1 Apr 2011, GP Wooden wrote:
I wonder on the carrier would survive a DoS attack ...
I'm not sure about that, but we know that, if a Sullenberger unit has been installed, a large aircraft can survive a DoS attack perpetrated by the avian carrier.
-- Brandon Ross AIM: BrandonNRoss ICQ: 2269442 Skype: brandonross Yahoo: BrandonNRoss
I believe that the Sullenberger unit effected the loss of the avian carriers requiring regeneration and retransmission. Dave Edelman On Apr 1, 2011, at 12:19, Brandon Ross <bross@pobox.com> wrote:
On Fri, 1 Apr 2011, GP Wooden wrote:
I wonder on the carrier would survive a DoS attack ...
I'm not sure about that, but we know that, if a Sullenberger unit has been installed, a large aircraft can survive a DoS attack perpetrated by the avian carrier.
-- Brandon Ross AIM: BrandonNRoss ICQ: 2269442 Skype: brandonross Yahoo: BrandonNRoss
On Apr 1, 2011, at 9:19 AM, Brandon Ross wrote:
On Fri, 1 Apr 2011, GP Wooden wrote:
I wonder on the carrier would survive a DoS attack ...
I'm not sure about that, but we know that, if a Sullenberger unit has been installed, a large aircraft can survive a DoS attack perpetrated by the avian carrier.
-- Brandon Ross AIM: BrandonNRoss ICQ: 2269442 Skype: brandonross Yahoo: BrandonNRoss
Not true. The occupants of the aircraft survived. The aircraft did not. Owen
On Fri, 1 Apr 2011, Owen DeLong wrote:
Not true.
The occupants of the aircraft survived. The aircraft did not.
Hm, in my recollection the payload made it to the destination. Perhaps the route was a bit unexpected though. -- Brandon Ross AIM: BrandonNRoss ICQ: 2269442 Skype: brandonross Yahoo: BrandonNRoss
Random re-encapsulation. Now there's an interesting protocol! On 4/2/11 3:53 AM, Brandon Ross wrote: On Fri, 1 Apr 2011, Owen DeLong wrote: Not true. The occupants of the aircraft survived. The aircraft did not. Hm, in my recollection the payload made it to the destination. Perhaps the route was a bit unexpected though.
participants (9)
-
Andy Davidson -
Brandon Ross -
Cutler James R -
Dave Edelman -
Dorn Hetzel -
Justin M. Streiner -
Owen DeLong -
Richard Barnes -
Scott Morris