nanog mailing list archives
Re: address spoofing
From: Phil Howard <phil () whistler intur net>
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1999 21:27:34 -0500 (CDT)
Phillip Vandry wrote:
My outbound access lists block it, so you should never see 1918 sources coming from me. You should see "* * *" instead, even if you don't block them coming in to your net.I think this sucks big-time. It wouldn't be quite so bad if traceroute were the only thing that were broken by it (though I do like my traceroutes to work properly too), but when all ICMP traffic from such a router is hosed, and one of the links my packets are trying to hop onto through such a router is down, then I'm a particularly unhappy camper (if I could see the !H or !N I'd still be unhappy of course, but not...and I'd certainly like to see my ICMP unreachables which are vital to path MTU discovery not blocked.
Since the road doesn't narrow, this won't be a problem on these links. This is taken into consideration when the addresses are assigned. There might be others doing this improperly. -- Phil Howard KA9WGN phil () intur net phil () ipal net
Current thread:
- Re: address spoofing, (continued)
- Re: address spoofing Andrew Brown (Apr 23)
- Re: address spoofing Randy Bush (Apr 23)
- Re: address spoofing Dan Hollis (Apr 23)
- Re: address spoofing sthaug (Apr 23)
- Re: address spoofing Greg A. Woods (Apr 23)
- Re: address spoofing Phil Howard (Apr 22)
- Re: address spoofing Greg A. Woods (Apr 23)
- Re: address spoofing Phillip Vandry (Apr 23)
- Re: address spoofing Greg A. Woods (Apr 23)
- Re: address spoofing Phil Howard (Apr 23)
- Re: address spoofing Bryan Bradsby (Apr 23)
- Re: address spoofing Phil Howard (Apr 23)
- Re: address spoofing Andrew Brown (Apr 23)
- Re: address spoofing Phil Howard (Apr 25)
- Re: address spoofing sthaug (Apr 25)
- Re: address spoofing Andrew Brown (Apr 25)
- RE: address spoofing Roeland M.J. Meyer (Apr 26)