[15611] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: More smurf fun
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jon Lewis)
Wed Mar 11 23:49:35 1998
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 23:42:02 -0500 (EST)
From: Jon Lewis <jlewis@inorganic5.fdt.net>
To: "Ing. Alejandro Perea Mejia" <alex@noc.unam.mx>
cc: Hank Nussbacher <hank@ibm.net.il>, Scott Gifford <sgifford@tir.com>,
nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SOL.3.91.980311143402.12705B-100000@orion>
On Wed, 11 Mar 1998, Ing. Alejandro Perea Mejia wrote:
> > > Is there any good reason I shouldn't ask my upstream network providers to
> > > filter all packets coming in to our network with one of these source
> > > addresses? And is there any good reason this wouldn't very effectively
> > > prevent us from being a Smurf target?
> >
> > Cuz some of them may have been fixed by now.
>
> I'm agree, one of that networks -at least- is now protected [132.248.0.0] so
> you don't need to filter packets coming from the nets on the list.
So what we need is an RBL for smurf amplifier networks. That would
seriously encourage these sites to block broadcast pings and would
automatically removed fixed sites from everyone's filters.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Lewis <jlewis@fdt.net> | Unsolicited commercial e-mail will
Network Administrator | be proof-read for $199/message.
Florida Digital Turnpike |
______http://inorganic5.fdt.net/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key____
