Re: raw/NOTRACK + TARPIT = good idea?

[IP v6 <inet6@mail.be>]

I would like to do this also but I don't quite understand what you mean with "take care both directions for the tarpitted sessions".

I'm a bit confused there, could you explain? :)

Wkr, Robby

> ----------------------------------------
> From: Jozsef Kadlecsik <kadlec@blackhole.kfki.hu>
> Sent: Mon Nov 24 09:11:17 CET 2003
> To: Juan Carlos Castro y Castro <jcastro@vialink.com.br>
> Subject: Re: raw/NOTRACK + TARPIT = good idea?
> 
> 
> On Fri, 21 Nov 2003, Juan Carlos Castro y Castro wrote:
> 
> > I'm thinking about the TARPIT target, and that it's a shame it will
> > use resources if my box does conntrack. But if I previously pass them
> > through -t raw -j NOTRACK, can I have the best of both worlds, i.e., a
> > routing NAT box who is able to tarpit undesired packets itself?
> 
> Yes, but you have to take care both directions for the tarpitted
> sessions. That's the price using the NOTRACK target.
> 
> Best regards,
> Jozsef
> -
> E-mail  : kadlec@blackhole.kfki.hu, kadlec@sunserv.kfki.hu
> PGP key : http://www.kfki.hu/~kadlec/pgp_public_key.txt
> Address : KFKI Research Institute for Particle and Nuclear Physics
>           H-1525 Budapest 114, POB. 49, Hungary
> 
> 
> 

-----------------------------------------------------
Mail.be, WebMail and Virtual Office
http://www.mail.be