nanog mailing list archives
Re: Smurf tone down
From: Jan Ahrent Czmok <j.czmok () gigabell net>
Date: Sat, 1 May 1999 13:06:56 +0200
* Dan Hollis (goemon () sasami anime net) [990501 08:35]:
On Sat, 1 May 1999, Joe Shaw wrote:After dealing with UUNet security regarding several smurf incidents I asked them this same question. Their response (and I'm sure it would be the same response of others) was that a lot of the routers on their network couldn't handle the load of using CEF-CAR to limit smurf attacks.The explanation I got from uunet regarding smurf attacks and why they dont shut down their smurf amplifiers when notified repeatedly about them, is that their ascend tnt's dont support icmp filtering. -Dan
I had a different view for the worldcom pops. as they got customers with sub-t1 and t1 they connect it to smaller devices and digger ones to cisco 7513 / b - stdx and fore switches. Nevertheless some URL pointing the uunet structure of a gigapop: http://info.uu.net/tv/unite/low/hubs.html Jan -- Jan Czmok Senior Network Engineer GIGABELL AG
Current thread:
- Smurf tone down alex (Apr 30)
- Re: Smurf tone down R.P. Aditya (Apr 30)
- Re: Smurf tone down alex (Apr 30)
- Re: Smurf tone down Joe Shaw (Apr 30)
- Re: Smurf tone down Dan Hollis (May 01)
- Re: Smurf tone down Jan Ahrent Czmok (May 01)
- Re: Smurf tone down alex (May 01)
- Re: Smurf tone down Dan Hollis (May 01)
- Re: Smurf tone down Leo Bicknell (May 01)
- Re: Smurf tone down alex (May 01)
- Re: Smurf tone down Tim Winders (May 01)
- Re: Smurf tone down alex (May 01)
- Re: Smurf tone down Leo Bicknell (May 01)
- Re: Smurf tone down Stephen Stuart (May 01)
- Re: Smurf tone down Leo Bicknell (May 01)
- Re: Smurf tone down bmanning (May 01)
- Re: Smurf tone down alex (May 01)
- Re: Smurf tone down R.P. Aditya (Apr 30)
- Re: Smurf tone down Havard . Eidnes (May 03)