Alternate and/or hidden infrastructure addresses (BGP/TCP RST/SYN vulnerability)

Fri Apr 23 13:09:57 UTC 2004

On Apr 23, 2004, at 4:07 AM, Pekka Savola wrote:

> On Thu, 22 Apr 2004, Patrick W.Gilmore wrote:
>> Hrmmm, would the GTSM work with loopback peering?  ISTR it allowed a
>> TTL of 254, which should make it to the loopback interface.
>
> Only flawed implementations have to use TTL of 254 when you have a
> session between two adjacent loopbacks.  But I think those still
> exist...
>
> (TTL should only be decremented when _forwarding_, and I don't think
> you could argue that you need to _forward_ a packet from your ingress
> interface to your _loopback_ interface..)

Well, if that were the case, then you wouldn't need multi-hop to do 
loopback peering.

-- 
TTFN,
patrick