[16266] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: SMURF amplifier block list
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (jlixfeld@idirect.ca)
Fri Apr 17 16:04:03 1998
From: jlixfeld@idirect.ca
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1998 15:23:26 -0400 (EDT)
To: Charley Kline <kline@uiuc.edu>
cc: "Jay R. Ashworth" <jra@scfn.thpl.lib.fl.us>, nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <199804142100.QAA18581@spiffy.cso.uiuc.edu>
Then how do you effectivly protect your networks form being used as
amplifiers? Does no ip directed broadcast really work?
On Tue, 14 Apr 1998, Charley Kline wrote:
:> No, IMHO, the comment stands: no matter _what_ size your network is, if
:> you assign host addresses with a .0 or .255 final octet, things may
:> break, and you deserve what you get.
:
:> Again, the likelihood that these addresses will cause problems or
:> experience connectivity issues is a far greater concern than the gain of
:> less than 1% of usable address space.
:
:
:What bullshit. Am I hearing people advocating deliberately breaking
:perfectly valid addresses in order to not have to tax our poor brains
:for a proper solution?
:
:Filtering out all x.x.x.255 addresses is a very bad idea. It's a
:quick-and-dirty, poorly-thought-out hack. There are lots of .0 and .255
:addresses in use in variously sized net blocks. We don't get to simply
:say "well too bad." Especially coming from the same people who advocated
:classless addressing to begin with. The byte boundaries are meaningless.
:We all said so.
:
:Dissapointed,
:
:/cvk
:
--
Regards,
Jason A. Lixfeld jlixfeld@idirect.ca
iDirect Network Operations jlixfeld@torontointernetxchange.net
---------------------------------------------------------------------
TUCOWS Interactive Ltd. o/a | "A Different Kind of Internet Company"
Internet Direct Canada Inc. | "FREE BANDWIDTH for Toronto Area IAPs"
5415 Dundas Street West | http://www.torontointernetxchange.net
Suite 301, Toronto Ontario | (416) 236-5806 (T)
M9B-1B5 CANADA | (416) 236-5804 (F)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
