nanog mailing list archives
Re: More smurf fun
From: Jon Lewis <jlewis () inorganic5 fdt net>
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 23:42:02 -0500 (EST)
On Wed, 11 Mar 1998, Ing. Alejandro Perea Mejia wrote:
Is there any good reason I shouldn't ask my upstream network providers to filter all packets coming in to our network with one of these source addresses? And is there any good reason this wouldn't very effectively prevent us from being a Smurf target?Cuz some of them may have been fixed by now.I'm agree, one of that networks -at least- is now protected [132.248.0.0] so you don't need to filter packets coming from the nets on the list.
So what we need is an RBL for smurf amplifier networks. That would seriously encourage these sites to block broadcast pings and would automatically removed fixed sites from everyone's filters. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Jon Lewis <jlewis () fdt net> | Unsolicited commercial e-mail will Network Administrator | be proof-read for $199/message. Florida Digital Turnpike | ______http://inorganic5.fdt.net/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key____
Current thread:
- More smurf fun Dave Rand (Mar 08)
- Re: More smurf fun Alex P. Rudnev (Mar 10)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: More smurf fun Jeffrey Haas (Mar 09)
- Re: More smurf fun Alex P. Rudnev (Mar 10)
- Re: More smurf fun Scott Gifford (Mar 10)
- Re: More smurf fun Hank Nussbacher (Mar 10)
- Re: More smurf fun Ing. Alejandro Perea Mejia (Mar 11)
- Re: More smurf fun Jon Lewis (Mar 11)
- Message not available
- Re: More smurf fun Jay R. Ashworth (Mar 12)
- Re: More smurf fun Hank Nussbacher (Mar 10)