nanog mailing list archives
Re: GLBX ICMP rate limiting (was RE: Tier-1 without their own bac kbone?)
From: alex () yuriev com
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2003 23:00:33 -0400 (EDT)
Once upon a time, Jack Bates <jbates () brightok net> said:Are people idiots or do they just not possess equipment capable of trashing 92 byte icmp traffic and letting the small amount of normal traffic through unhindered?Well, when we used the policy routing example from the Cisco advisory to drop just 92 byte ICMP traffic, we had other random types of traffic dropped as well (possibly an IOS bug, but who knows).
It is cisco. There are no bugs. They are unknown features. When Cisco does figure out what that those packets are, they will document it. Alex
Current thread:
- RE: GLBX ICMP rate limiting (was RE: Tier-1 without their own bac kbone?) Temkin, David (Aug 28)
- Re: GLBX ICMP rate limiting (was RE: Tier-1 without their own bac kbone?) Jack Bates (Aug 28)
- Re: GLBX ICMP rate limiting (was RE: Tier-1 without their own bac kbone?) Chris Adams (Aug 28)
- Re: GLBX ICMP rate limiting (was RE: Tier-1 without their own bac kbone?) alex (Aug 28)
- Re: GLBX ICMP rate limiting (was RE: Tier-1 without their own bac kbone?) Chris Adams (Aug 28)
- Re: GLBX ICMP rate limiting (was RE: Tier-1 without their own bac kbone?) Jack Bates (Aug 28)