SMURF amplifier block list

jlixfeld at jlixfeld at
Fri Apr 17 19:23:26 UTC 1998

Then how do you effectivly protect your networks form being used as
amplifiers?  Does no ip directed broadcast really work?

On Tue, 14 Apr 1998, Charley Kline wrote:

:> No, IMHO, the comment stands: no matter _what_ size your network is, if
:> you assign host addresses with a .0 or .255 final octet, things may
:> break, and you deserve what you get.
:> Again, the likelihood that these addresses will cause problems or
:> experience connectivity issues is a far greater concern than the gain of
:> less than 1% of usable address space.
:What bullshit. Am I hearing people advocating deliberately breaking
:perfectly valid addresses in order to not have to tax our poor brains
:for a proper solution?
:Filtering out all x.x.x.255 addresses is a very bad idea. It's a
:quick-and-dirty, poorly-thought-out hack. There are lots of .0 and .255
:addresses in use in variously sized net blocks. We don't get to simply
:say "well too bad." Especially coming from the same people who advocated
:classless addressing to begin with. The byte boundaries are meaningless.
:We all said so.


Jason A. Lixfeld             jlixfeld at
iDirect Network Operations   jlixfeld at

TUCOWS Interactive Ltd. o/a  | "A Different Kind of Internet Company"
Internet Direct Canada Inc.  | "FREE BANDWIDTH for Toronto Area IAPs"
5415 Dundas Street West      |
Suite 301, Toronto Ontario   | (416) 236-5806	     (T)
M9B-1B5 CANADA               | (416) 236-5804        (F)

More information about the NANOG mailing list