[22653] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Smurfing and IP filtering
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Steven J. Sobol)
Thu Jan 14 10:25:10 1999
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 10:03:30 -0500
From: "Steven J. Sobol" <sjsobol@nacs.net>
To: "Alex P. Rudnev" <alex@Relcom.EU.net>
Cc: "Steven J. Sobol" <sjsobol@nacs.net>, Scott McGrath <SMcGrath@YBP.com>,
Chris Cook <ccook@netasset.com>, nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.91.990114132929.18173q-100000@virgin.relcom.eu.net>; from Alex P. Rudnev on Thu, Jan 14, 1999 at 01:30:01PM +0300
On Thu, Jan 14, 1999 at 01:30:01PM +0300, Alex P. Rudnev wrote:
> There is RFC recommendation for the router.
>
> Why there is not RFC describing the policy (mandatory!) for the ISP?
An RFC is a recommendation. A typical RFC usually ends up being a de-facto
standard, however it does not have the force of law.
Backbone operators have to start putting pressure on their downstreams to
fix their router configs. The downstreams have to put pressure on THEIR
downstreams, etc. The only way to get everyone to fix their routers is to
write clauses into contracts saying "if your network ends up being a smurf
amplifier, and we find that your routers are misconfigured, you will be
disconnected from the Net without any kind of refund or credit for your
downtime, and you will remain down until you fix things."
That, and education, will do the trick.
--
Steve Sobol [sjsobol@nacs.net]
Part-time Support Droid [support@nacs.net]
NACS Spaminator [abuse@nacs.net]
Proud resident of Cleveland Heights, Ohio, the coolest place on earth.
http://www.ClevelandHeights.com
