This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/[email protected]/
[atlas] "Spoofing" tests.
- Previous message (by thread): [atlas] "Spoofing" tests.
- Next message (by thread): [atlas] "Spoofing" tests.
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Leo Bicknell
bicknell at ufp.org
Sun Sep 15 02:19:22 CEST 2013
On Sep 7, 2013, at 12:39 PM, Joe Provo <jzp-ripe at rsuc.gweep.net> wrote: > There was traffic seeming to support the idea of a properly opted-in > method (as recently as 30 July) but there hadn't been specifics > regarding the implementation nor commitment that it would get to > such a one. :-) My personal opinion is that I have no issue with _RIPE_ conducting a spoofing test using my probes, but I have an objection to letting a random person conduct a spoofing test. With the former I have confidence it won't be used for evil in any way, with the latter I can see cases where my values and the probe creators values don't completely overlap. I would like to see RIPE try and spoof a RIPE IP from all the probes, and report on the results, at least once. -- Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440 PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 793 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: </ripe/mail/archives/ripe-atlas/attachments/20130914/fce90f7e/attachment.sig>
- Previous message (by thread): [atlas] "Spoofing" tests.
- Next message (by thread): [atlas] "Spoofing" tests.
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]