nanog mailing list archives
Re: Smurfable Networks
From: Brian Horvitz <horvitz () shore net>
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 14:54:03 -0400 (EDT)
Actually, it turns out that a some of what I posted were only echo replies from single hosts. This was indeed a real smurf..at one point we were pulling about 50 Meg over 3 T3s. The error I made was in generating the list of amplifier networks from my log files. Networks with even one single echo reply to the target address were included in the list. Such was the case with the net 12 entries - each one corresponded only to one IP address, not a whole network worth. Brian
It is not clear to me how you got net 12 entries in your list. They are not smurfable and I don't think they have even been. Please remove them from your list. Thanks.I don't see a single entry in that list which is a broadcast. I would say someone is being taken here. Perhaps you were flooded with straight spoofed echo replies, as most of these networks seem to be the EXTRA-responsible ones.
Current thread:
- Smurfable Networks Brian Horvitz (Jul 22)
- Re: Smurfable Networks Steven nash (Jul 22)
- Re: Smurfable Networks Robert Cooper (Jul 22)
- Re: Smurfable Networks Yung-Chao Yu (Jul 22)
- Re: Smurfable Networks Tim Kempka (Jul 22)
- Re: Smurfable Networks Louis Destree (Jul 22)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: Smurfable Networks Richard Thomas (Jul 22)
- Re: Smurfable Networks Brian Horvitz (Jul 22)
- Re: Smurfable Networks Richard Thomas (Jul 22)