SCTP Discussions

Text archives Help


Re: [SCTP-Discussion] SCTP queries


Chronological Thread 
  • From: kusum <kusum AT india.mercurykr.com>
  • To: discussion AT sctp.de
  • Subject: Re: [SCTP-Discussion] SCTP queries
  • Date: Fri Jun 29 12:43:01 2001
  • List-id: SCTP Discussions <discussion.sctp.de>

Cookie mechanism is now clear to me....Thanks alot for clearing my doubts....
for multihoming yes it is mention for SCTP endpoint...
here i am giving lines of RFC 2960
"An SCTP endpoint is considered multi-homed if there are more than one
transport address that can be used as a destination address to reach
that endpoint."
so tell me this is true ......or it should be for IP addrreses instead of
transport
addresses..
kk



Tuexen Michael wrote:

> Dear all,
> see my comments below.
> Best regards
> Michael
>
> Michael Tuexen Tel.: +49 89 722 47210
> Siemens AG Fax: +49 89 722 48212
> ICN WN CS SE 5 E-mail:
> Michael.Tuexen AT icn.siemens.de
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: kusum
> > [SMTP:kusum AT india.mercurykr.com]
> > Sent: Friday, June 29, 2001 5:00 AM
> > To: discussion
> > Subject: [SCTP-Discussion] SCTP queries
> >
> > Hi! all,
> >
> > Here are some queries for SCTP which i couldn't understand...
> > 1)what kind of security is provided by cookie mechanism and how?As every
> > feature of SCTP has reason behind it like multiple streams resolves the
> > problem of head of line blocking,and during association iniitalization
> > we deal the temperory TCB for resolving SYN attack problem of TCP .So
> > for which purpose we r using cookie mechanism?
> >
> [Tuexen Michael] Consider an attacker who is flooding you with
> INITs. He is using his own IP address or is using a different
> (spoofing).
> The receiver will send back INIT-ACKs and forget about the assoc. So
> NO resources at the receiver will be reserved for the attacker.
> Only if
> you got back the COOKIE from the sender of the INIT you will
> reserve some
> resources. If the attacker is spoofing the IP Address, this will
> never happen.
> > 2)It is mentioned in RFC that a host is multihomed if it is having
> > multiple transport address.but i think it shouldn't be like this.it
> [Tuexen Michael] Where do you find this? I don't find the
> place where this is stated. I find a lot of 'multi-homed endpoints'.
> > should be a host is multihomed if it support multiple IP addresses.
> > as we know that if we have one IP address and two ports
> > in that case we have two different transport address with same IP
> > address and different port numbers.but i think this is not
> > multihoming.multihoming is same port different IP addresses.Please
> > correct me......
> > regards.....
> > KK
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > discussion mailing list
> > discussion AT sctp.de
> > http://www.sctp.de/mailman/listinfo/discussion
> _______________________________________________
> discussion mailing list
> discussion AT sctp.de
> http://www.sctp.de/mailman/listinfo/discussion





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.19+.

Top of page