[31507] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: netscan.org update
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (John Fraizer)
Tue Sep 26 13:14:30 2000
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2000 13:12:11 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Fraizer <nanog@EnterZone.Net>
To: "Roeland M.J. Meyer" <rmeyer@MHSC.com>
Cc: Troy Davis <troy@nack.net>, nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <1148622BC878D411971F0060082B042C3719@hawk.lvrmr.mhsc.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0009261309311.13218-100000@Overkill.EnterZone.Net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Tue, 26 Sep 2000, Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
>
> > From: Troy Davis [mailto:troy@nack.net]
> > Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2000 9:49 AM
> >
> > On Tue, 26 Sep 2000, Roeland M.J. Meyer <rmeyer@MHSC.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I know that all of you are aware of this. Granted, each subsequently
> > > smaller subnet also limits the maximum number of hosts that
> > will respond
> > > to the smurf trigger. The point is that, the web-site ONLY
> > tests 0 and
> >
> > Actually, that's often not the case. Through NAT and other modern
> > marvels, it's possible to have massively overpopulated netblocks that
> > all respond. The largest amplifier we've found yet was 170,000x (on
> > a class C).
>
> Thank you Troy, However my point remains.
>
Roeland,
I believe that during the last run, netscan tested down to the /27
boundry. While I agree that this isn't as complete as testing down to the
/30 boundry, even testing to the /24 boundry provides more information
than not testing at all.
Additionally, the website indicates that there will be another test down
to the /27 boundry.
---
John Fraizer
EnterZone, Inc
