nanog mailing list archives
Re: Where are static bogon filters appropriate? was: 96.2.0.0/16 Bogons
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike () swm pp se>
Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2007 07:54:57 +0100 (CET)
On Sat, 3 Mar 2007, Sean Donelan wrote:
Instead of dropping packets with unallocated sources addresses, perhaps backbones should shutdown interfaces they receive packets from unallocated address space. Would this be more effective at both stopping the sources of unallocated addresses; as well as sources that spoof other addresses because the best way to prevent your interface from being shutdown by backbone operators is to be certain you only transmit packets with your source addresses.
uRPF or plain source-based filtering for the IP blocks allocated to the customer is enough. Shutting it down doesn't make any commercial sense, customers wont buy your service if their port is going to be shut down due to a single packet. They'll (likely) understand if you won't forward a packet from them which has a source address not not belonging to them, though.
-- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike () swm pp se
Current thread:
- RE: Where are static bogon filters appropriate? was: 96.2.0.0/16 Bogons, (continued)
- RE: Where are static bogon filters appropriate? was: 96.2.0.0/16 Bogons michael.dillon (Mar 02)
- RE: Where are static bogon filters appropriate? was: 96.2.0.0/16 Bogons michael.dillon (Mar 02)
- Re: Where are static bogon filters appropriate? was: 96.2.0.0/16 Bogons Roland Dobbins (Mar 02)
- Re: Where are static bogon filters appropriate? was: 96.2.0.0/16 Bogons Sean Donelan (Mar 02)
- RE: Where are static bogon filters appropriate? was: 96.2.0.0/16 Bogons Eric Ortega (Mar 02)
- Re: Where are static bogon filters appropriate? was: 96.2.0.0/16 Bogons Steven M. Bellovin (Mar 02)
- Re: Where are static bogon filters appropriate? was: 96.2.0.0/16 Bogons Daniel Senie (Mar 02)
- Re: Where are static bogon filters appropriate? was: 96.2.0.0/16 Bogons Sean Donelan (Mar 03)
- Re: Where are static bogon filters appropriate? was: 96.2.0.0/16 Bogons Peter Dambier (Mar 03)
- RE: Where are static bogon filters appropriate? was: 96.2.0.0/16 Bogons Barry Greene (bgreene) (Mar 04)
- Re: Where are static bogon filters appropriate? was: 96.2.0.0/16 Bogons Roland Dobbins (Mar 02)
- Re: Where are static bogon filters appropriate? was: 96.2.0.0/16 Bogons Mikael Abrahamsson (Mar 03)
- Re: Where are static bogon filters appropriate? was: 96.2.0.0/16 Bogons Sean Donelan (Mar 04)
- Re: Where are static bogon filters appropriate? was: 96.2.0.0/16 Bogons Mikael Abrahamsson (Mar 06)
- Re: Where are static bogon filters appropriate? was: 96.2.0.0/16 Bogons Sean Donelan (Mar 06)
- Re: Where are static bogon filters appropriate? was: 96.2.0.0/16 Bogons Mikael Abrahamsson (Mar 06)
- Re: Where are static bogon filters appropriate? was: 96.2.0.0/16 Bogons Valdis . Kletnieks (Mar 06)
- Re: Where are static bogon filters appropriate? was: 96.2.0.0/16 Bogons Mikael Abrahamsson (Mar 06)
- Re: Where are static bogon filters appropriate? was: 96.2.0.0/16 Bogons Mark Radabaugh (Mar 06)
- Re: Where are static bogon filters appropriate? was: 96.2.0.0/16 Bogons Sean Donelan (Mar 09)
- Re: Where are static bogon filters appropriate? was: 96.2.0.0/16 Bogons Roland Dobbins (Mar 02)
- 123.0.0.0/8 from AS7643 (was - Re: Where are static bogon filters appropriate? was: 96.2.0.0/16 Bogons) william(at)elan.net (Mar 02)