nanog mailing list archives
Re: Router modifications to deal with smurf
From: Tony Li <tli () juniper net>
Date: 29 Apr 1998 23:27:04 -0700
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. ;-) Tony
Current thread:
- Router modifications to deal with smurf Rusty Zickefoose (Apr 26)
- Re: Router modifications to deal with smurf John Hawkinson (Apr 26)
- Message not available
- Re: Router modifications to deal with smurf Jay R. Ashworth (Apr 27)
- Message not available
- Re: Router modifications to deal with smurf John Hawkinson (Apr 26)
- Re: Router modifications to deal with smurf Craig A. Huegen (Apr 26)
- Message not available
- Re: Router modifications to deal with smurf Kelly J. Cooper (Apr 27)
- Re: Router modifications to deal with smurf John A. Tamplin (Apr 27)
- Re: Router modifications to deal with smurf Michael Dillon (Apr 27)
- Message not available
- Re: Router modifications to deal with smurf Tony Li (Apr 29)