nanog mailing list archives
Re: RFC 1918
From: Dan Hollis <goemon () sasami anime net>
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 22:27:04 -0700 (PDT)
On Fri, 14 Jul 2000, Richard A. Steenbergen wrote:
On Fri, 14 Jul 2000, Rick wrote:Richard I think you MISS two points which are at the center of this thread. First every sub-hacker (ie, those who do NOT write their own source) will usually use RFC1918 for any type of DOS attack as it is the recommended source of attack (if you do not agree with this then this thread is pointless).I absolutily do not agree with this. I have never seen this behavior yet,
I have seen it many times I have also seen DOS attacks which consisted primarily of 127.x.x.x addresses -Dan
Current thread:
- RE: RFC 1918, (continued)
- RE: RFC 1918 Jamie Rishaw (Jul 14)
- RE: RFC 1918 John Fraizer (Jul 14)
- Re: RFC 1918 Todd R. Stroup (Jul 14)
- Re: RFC 1918 John Fraizer (Jul 15)
- Re: RFC 1918 Bill Fumerola (Jul 15)
- RE: RFC 1918 John Fraizer (Jul 14)
- RE: RFC 1918 Jamie Rishaw (Jul 14)
- Re: RFC 1918 Todd R. Stroup (Jul 14)
- Re: RFC 1918 Eric A. Hall (Jul 14)
- Re: RFC 1918 Rick (Jul 14)
- Re: RFC 1918 Richard A. Steenbergen (Jul 14)
- Re: RFC 1918 Dan Hollis (Jul 14)
- Re: RFC 1918 Greg A. Woods (Jul 16)
- Re: RFC 1918 Greg A. Woods (Jul 16)
- Re: RFC 1918 John Fraizer (Jul 17)
- Re: RFC 1918 Stephen Kowalchuk (Jul 17)
- Re: RFC 1918 ww (Jul 17)
- Re: RFC 1918 Eric A. Hall (Jul 17)
- Re: RFC 1918 ww (Jul 17)