[23955] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Smurf tone down
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jan Ahrent Czmok)
Sat May 1 08:07:15 1999
Date: Sat, 1 May 1999 13:06:56 +0200
From: Jan Ahrent Czmok <j.czmok@gigabell.net>
To: Dan Hollis <goemon@sasami.anime.net>
Cc: Joe Shaw <jshaw@insync.net>, alex@nac.net, nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.10.9905010018020.11220-100000@sasami.anime.net>; from Dan Hollis on Sat, May 01, 1999 at 12:21:05AM -0700
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
* Dan Hollis (goemon@sasami.anime.net) [990501 08:35]:
>
> On Sat, 1 May 1999, Joe Shaw wrote:
> > After dealing with UUNet security regarding several smurf incidents I
> > asked them this same question. Their response (and I'm sure it would be
> > the same response of others) was that a lot of the routers on their
> > network couldn't handle the load of using CEF-CAR to limit smurf attacks.
>
> The explanation I got from uunet regarding smurf attacks and why they
> dont shut down their smurf amplifiers when notified repeatedly about
> them, is that their ascend tnt's dont support icmp filtering.
>
> -Dan
>
I had a different view for the worldcom pops. as they got customers with
sub-t1 and t1 they connect it to smaller devices and digger ones to
cisco 7513 / b - stdx and fore switches.
Nevertheless some URL pointing the uunet structure of a gigapop:
http://info.uu.net/tv/unite/low/hubs.html
Jan
--
Jan Czmok
Senior Network Engineer
GIGABELL AG
