Router modifications to deal with smurf

Tony Li tli at
Thu Apr 30 06:27:04 UTC 1998

> Note that I'm not arguing that it *should* be the default, I'm just
> arguing that vendors have implemented it this way because that's the way
> they were told to in the RFC.

Umm.... this is only partially true.  As of the writing of 1812 (and
predecessors), vendors had implemented it one particular way and argued
that the spec should reflect the implementations.  Of course, at the time,
the net was a kinder, gentler place, and the threats of smurfing were not
well known.

Live and learn.  ;-)


More information about the NANOG mailing list