+1 On 6/29/2015 4:06 PM, joel jaeggli wrote: > ignoring for a second the question of information leakage which is > apparently intentional in this case; an icmp message is unlikley to hash > onto the same path that the offending/failed flow would have been on in > many networks.
When you say "middlebox" you're opening up the set that includes NATs, and that means any message that isn't to the same address/port pair isn't likely traverse the same path. So *at best* this might be able to contact the first middlebox it encounters, but how useful would that be with that limitation? (I'm also ignoring the fact that most middleboxes don't want to admit they exist, so this might be only providing another way for them to ignore you) Joe _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
