[28649] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: New Internet-draft on DDOS defense...
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Paul Ferguson)
Thu May 11 07:48:51 2000
Message-Id: <4.3.1.2.20000511074318.00abc260@lint.cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 07:44:59 -0400
To: "Vipul Shah" <svipul@novell.com>
From: Paul Ferguson <ferguson@cisco.com>
Cc: <nanog@merit.edu>, "Hilarie Orman" <HORMAN@novell.com>,
"Jamshid Mahdavi" <MAHDAVI@novell.com>
In-Reply-To: <s919df1a.075@prv-mail20.provo.novell.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
How is this substantially different than RFC2644, "Changing
the Default for Directed Broadcasts in Routers"?
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2644.txt
- paul
At 10:13 PM 05/10/2000 -0600, Vipul Shah wrote:
>Hi All,
>
>I'd like to bring your attention to a recent Internet-draft. The URL is:
>
>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-vshah-ddos-smurf-00.txt
>
>This draft proposes a specific (simple) change to RFC1122 which would
>help reduce the use of Smurf amplification in DDOS attacks. This is
>augments ingress filtering; it is designed specifically for the case
>where the attacker (source) is using broadcast on the local LAN as
>part of a DDOS attack. This is a case where ingress filtering does
>not help.
>
>We are proposing that it be an addition to the standard set by
>RFC1122. We'd very much like to hear comments from people on this draft.
>
>Vipul
>
>
