nanog mailing list archives

Re: Land and Cisco question

From: Joe Shaw <jshaw () insync net>
Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 09:17:56 -0600 (CST)

On Sun, 23 Nov 1997, Alan Barrett wrote:

Randy Bush said:

for each interface on a router
  block tcp which is both to and from that interface


I don't think that's sufficient.  What about spoofed packets arriving via
interface A, with IP source and destination both set to the address of
interface B? 

--apb (Alan Barrett)


no ip source-route should fix it.

Joe Shaw - jshaw () insync net
NetAdmin - Insync Internet Services
Up WAY too early on a Sunday... :)

Current thread:

Land and Cisco question Hank Nussbacher (Nov 22)
- Re: Land and Cisco question John Bashinski (Nov 22)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: Land and Cisco question Hank Nussbacher (Nov 22)
  - Re: Land and Cisco question Randy Bush (Nov 22)
    - Re: Land and Cisco question Alex Bligh (Nov 22)
    - Re: Land and Cisco question Paul Ferguson (Nov 22)
    - Re: Land and Cisco question Alan Barrett (Nov 23)
    - Re: Land and Cisco question Joe Shaw (Nov 23)
    - Re: Land and Cisco question Randy Bush (Nov 23)
    - why not peer with LS disabling networks ? Lyndon Levesley (Nov 23)
    - Re: why not peer with LS disabling networks ? John Hawkinson (Nov 23)
    - Re: why not peer with LS disabling networks ? Randy Bush (Nov 23)
    - Re: why not peer with LS disabling networks ? Paul Ferguson (Nov 24)
    - Re: why not peer with LS disabling networks ? Network Operations Center (Nov 24)
    - Re: why not peer with LS disabling networks ? John Hawkinson (Nov 24)
    - Re: why not peer with LS disabling networks ? Neil J. McRae (Nov 25)
    - Re: Land and Cisco question Dean Anderson (Nov 24)
    - Re: Land and Cisco question Greg A. Woods (Nov 24)

(Thread continues...)