[20716] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Actions to quiet the Smurf amplifiers?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jay R. Ashworth)
Fri Oct 23 22:54:46 1998
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 22:19:42 -0400
From: "Jay R. Ashworth" <jra@scfn.thpl.lib.fl.us>
To: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <v03110730b253e705341a@[198.68.110.2]>; from "Erik E. Fair" <fair@clock.org> on Wed, Oct 21, 1998 at 12:40:14PM -0700
On Wed, Oct 21, 1998 at 12:40:14PM -0700, Erik E. Fair wrote:
> I also don't think it's such a hot idea to be universally filtering
> "n.n.n.255" without explicit prior knowledge of the netmask of the network
> involved. Apple Computer, for example, used a 14 bit subnet mask on net 17
> and we used every address in the 10-bit host space that was available to
> use with that scheme, including the three where the last octet is 255. Make
> certain that all your customers know that you're doing this - otherwise
> they may be puzzling over why connectivity works from every address in
> their net number, except for one or two...
I was one of the participants in the last war on this topic here, and I
feel the need to point out that I read him as saying he _ingress_
filtered 255, not egress filtered it.
He can be expected to know if his own internal network has any non
broadcast .255's, I'd think.
(He wasn't a reseller, was he? :-})
Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth jra@baylink.com
Member of the Technical Staff Buy copies of The New Hackers Dictionary.
The Suncoast Freenet Give them to all your friends.
Tampa Bay, Florida http://www.ccil.org/jargon/ +1 813 790 7592
