Actions to quiet the Smurf amplifiers?

Sat Oct 24 02:19:42 UTC 1998

On Wed, Oct 21, 1998 at 12:40:14PM -0700, Erik E. Fair wrote:
> I also don't think it's such a hot idea to be universally filtering
> "n.n.n.255" without explicit prior knowledge of the netmask of the network
> involved. Apple Computer, for example, used a 14 bit subnet mask on net 17
> and we used every address in the 10-bit host space that was available to
> use with that scheme, including the three where the last octet is 255. Make
> certain that all your customers know that you're doing this - otherwise
> they may be puzzling over why connectivity works from every address in
> their net number, except for one or two...

I was one of the participants in the last war on this topic here, and I
feel the need to point out that I read him as saying he _ingress_
filtered 255, not egress filtered it.

He can be expected to know if his own internal network has any non
broadcast .255's, I'd think.

(He wasn't a reseller, was he?  :-})

Cheers,
-- jra
-- 
Jay R. Ashworth                                                jra at baylink.com
Member of the Technical Staff     Buy copies of The New Hackers Dictionary.
The Suncoast Freenet            Give them to all your friends.
Tampa Bay, Florida     http://www.ccil.org/jargon/             +1 813 790 7592