|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |
Date: Sun, 19 Apr 1998 20:39:41 -0400 From: "Jay R. Ashworth" <jra@scfn.thpl.lib.fl.us> To: nanog@merit.edu In-Reply-To: <Pine.SOL.3.91.980418123708.6163A-100000@spot>; from Dan Boehlke <dboehlke@mr.net> on Sat, Apr 18, 1998 at 12:39:29PM -0500 On Sat, Apr 18, 1998 at 12:39:29PM -0500, Dan Boehlke wrote: > On Sat, 18 Apr 1998, Alex P. Rudnev wrote: > > Why don't use the filter > > deny icmp any 0.0.0.255 255.255.255.0 echo-request > > on the incoming lines? It just block 99.999% of this smurf amplifiers; > > and I hardly think someone eve sence this restriction for the real PING > > tests. > What about people who didn't subnet their class B on the eight bit > boundry, but made larger subnets instead? What about the class B that > doesn't appear to be subnetted at all? What about supernetted class C > networks? A trailing .255 can be a valid host. Yes, Dan, but any potential smurf-_amplifier_ who might need to do this _knows_ this about _their own network_, and can adjust accordingly. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth jra@baylink.com Member of the Technical Staff Unsolicited Commercial Emailers Sued The Suncoast Freenet "Two words: Darth Doogie." -- Jason Colby, Tampa Bay, Florida on alt.fan.heinlein +1 813 790 7592 Managing Editor, Top Of The Key sports e-zine ------------ http://www.totk.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |