[Firehol-support] "protection strong" on routes
carlos.efr at mail.telepac.pt
Sat Apr 22 14:53:10 BST 2006
On 4/22/06, Costa Tsaousis <costa at tsaousis.gr> wrote:
> Well, I am a little bit confused.
> We need "flood" and "bad-packets" or "strong-without-flood"?
I think having "flood" and "bad-packets" is better.
"strong-without-flood" is the same as "bad-packets" (and "bad-packets"
sounds better), which is the one that has the real value (just filter
out the trash, and otherwise not messing with the traffic), and
"flood" would be just for completeness (as I can't see of a reason to
use "protection flood" and not using "bad-packets" also).
> On the other hand, increasing the frequency and burst level does not fix
> the issue with flood matches?
It does. But stepping up those values until they are have no practical
effect is the same as not having flood control at all.
More information about the Firehol-support