On the other hand (since we're complementing each other's ideas), with Yavon's idea, it's easy to have puzzle N+1 depend on the solution to puzzle N. That may limit (to some small extent) the advantage that a highly parallel system would have in solving puzzles - while parallelism might be able to speed any individual puzzle, they would still have to solve the sequence of puzzles sequentially.
> -----Original Message----- > From: IPsec [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Yaron Sheffer > Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2016 2:53 PM > To: Yoav Nir; [email protected] WG > Subject: Re: [IPsec] DDoS Protection - single vs multiple solutions > > Scott's idea was different, and possibly better. At the cost of some > Responder compute work, his idea makes the Initiator's effort nearly > deterministic. > > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipsec/30_tZekTBxdYPFVc6B1bXaEMtE > Q > > Thanks, > Yaron > > On 02/17/2016 09:17 PM, Yoav Nir wrote: > > On 17 Feb 2016, at 6:09 PM, Yoav Nir <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> A while ago Scott Fluhrer suggested a way to make this more fair > > As it turns out, this was first suggested by Yaron: > > > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipsec/_JUTE8p5H6bhFOA1HCuaYX1NC > K > > Q > > > > Scott’s idea was a little different. > > > > Sorry for the confusion. > > > > Yoav > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > IPsec mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec > > _______________________________________________ > IPsec mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec _______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
