nanog mailing list archives
Re: Router modifications to deal with smurf
From: "John A. Tamplin" <jat () traveller com>
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1998 15:21:40 -0500 (CDT)
On Mon, 27 Apr 1998, Kelly J. Cooper wrote:
And if a vendor wants to argue that they are in keeping with RFC 1812 by having the forwarding of directed broadcasts on by default BUT do not have a knob built in to turn it off, then that looks a bit hypocritical and they open themselves up to all sorts of taunting.
Or they could have a knob for each interface, and a knob which sets the default for each interface which doesn't have its own setting. Then the default for the global default parameter could be RFC1812 compliant, yet allow a user to easily change it without having to update every interface. That would still mean that someone who started using the router without setting that parameter would be contributing to the problem, but they have to configure the box anyway to use it. As it is, it is easy to forget to set it on a new interface (although typically those are point-to-point links which only have a 2x factor anyway), at least until you have been burned once. John Tamplin Traveller Information Services jat () Traveller COM 2104 West Ferry Way 205/883-4233x7007 Huntsville, AL 35801
Current thread:
- Router modifications to deal with smurf Rusty Zickefoose (Apr 26)
- Re: Router modifications to deal with smurf John Hawkinson (Apr 26)
- Message not available
- Re: Router modifications to deal with smurf Jay R. Ashworth (Apr 27)
- Message not available
- Re: Router modifications to deal with smurf John Hawkinson (Apr 26)
- Re: Router modifications to deal with smurf Craig A. Huegen (Apr 26)
- Message not available
- Re: Router modifications to deal with smurf Kelly J. Cooper (Apr 27)
- Re: Router modifications to deal with smurf John A. Tamplin (Apr 27)
- Re: Router modifications to deal with smurf Michael Dillon (Apr 27)
- Message not available
- Re: Router modifications to deal with smurf Tony Li (Apr 29)