Re: draft-zourzouvillys-sip-via-cookie-00
Theo Zourzouvillys <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.sip |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Hi Nils, On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 11:22 PM, Nils Ohlmeier <[email protected]> wrote: > Yes, similar to the DNS server aplimifaction attacs which are going on right > now. I think should you should spend an extra section on the scenario to > seperate it from the pure SIP scenario. > > [snip] > > With this said I think it would be good if you seperate in your draft > between UA aplimifers and proxy amplifiers, because they result in different > traffic numbers if I'm not wrong. Will do. > Agreed. Although a failed server transaction results in a lot less harm then > an accepted call. although "lot less harm" is still "way more harm than any other commonly deployed publicly accessible UDP based service" :-) > Maybe some calculations about the amount of bytes would be helpfull here. sure. ~ Theo -- Theo Zourzouvillys Chief Technical Officer VoIP.co.uk _______________________________________________ Sip mailing list https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol Use [email protected] for questions on current sip Use [email protected] for new developments on the application of sip