nanog mailing list archives
traffic filtering
From: Stephen Griffin <stephen.griffin () rcn com>
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 17:53:16 -0500 (EST)
Hello, I'm curious about how many networks completely filter all traffic to any ip address ending in either ".0" or ".255". I'm curious because any network /0-/23,/31,/32 can legitimately have ip addresses in-use which end as such. /32's can obviously have (most) any ip address, since there is no notion of a network or broadcast address. /31 doesn't have a directed broadcast. For /0-/23 only the first ".0" and the last ".255" correspond to reserved addresses. All of the intervening addresses are legal. Is this type of filtering common? What alternate solutions are available to mitigate (I'm assuming) concerns about smurf amplifiers, that still allow traffic to/from legitimate addresses. What rationale is used to filter all traffic to network/broadcast addresses of /24 networks while ignoring network/broadcast of /25-/30? For that matter, what percentage of smurf amplifiers land on /24 boundaries? Thanks, Stephen
Current thread:
- traffic filtering Stephen Griffin (Jan 21)
- Re: traffic filtering Jared Mauch (Jan 21)
- Re: traffic filtering Jake Khuon (Jan 21)
- Re: traffic filtering Stephen Griffin (Jan 21)
- Re: traffic filtering John Kristoff (Jan 21)
- Re: traffic filtering Stephen Griffin (Jan 21)
- Re: traffic filtering Jim Segrave (Jan 22)
- Re: traffic filtering Avleen Vig (Jan 21)
- Re: traffic filtering Joe Abley (Jan 22)
- Re: traffic filtering E.B. Dreger (Jan 22)
- Re: traffic filtering J.F. Noonan (Jan 22)
(Thread continues...)
- Re: traffic filtering Jared Mauch (Jan 21)