nanog mailing list archives
Re: traffic filtering
From: Jim Segrave <jes () nl demon net>
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 12:00:18 +0100
On Mon 21 Jan 2002 (18:46 -0500), Stephen Griffin wrote:
In the referenced message, Stephen Griffin said:Hello, I'm curious about how many networks completely filter all traffic to any ip address ending in either ".0" or ".255".Just to clarify, since a lot of the messages I'm receiving seem to indicate I was unclear. I'm not trying to determine how I should filter. I'm trying to determine how many other networks filter in such a manner that traffic to/from legitimate hosts is blocked. One solution, rather than completely filter particular ip addresses, is to simply rate-limit either/both icmp echo request/icmp echo response message types. This should allow these other networks the ability to mitigate smurfs, while still allowing traffic from legitimate ip addresses.
We had to move some ADSL /32's off the .0 address because some idiots out there were filtering on /24 boundaries. Demon never allocates dialup /32's on .0 or .255, because there are misconfigured setups out there. -- Jim Segrave jes () nl demon net
Current thread:
- traffic filtering Stephen Griffin (Jan 21)
- Re: traffic filtering Jared Mauch (Jan 21)
- Re: traffic filtering Jake Khuon (Jan 21)
- Re: traffic filtering Stephen Griffin (Jan 21)
- Re: traffic filtering John Kristoff (Jan 21)
- Re: traffic filtering Stephen Griffin (Jan 21)
- Re: traffic filtering Jim Segrave (Jan 22)
- Re: traffic filtering Avleen Vig (Jan 21)
- Re: traffic filtering Joe Abley (Jan 22)
- Re: traffic filtering E.B. Dreger (Jan 22)
- Re: traffic filtering J.F. Noonan (Jan 22)
- Re: traffic filtering J.F. Noonan (Jan 22)
- Re: traffic filtering Joe Abley (Jan 22)
- Re: traffic filtering Jay Ford (Jan 24)
- Re: traffic filtering Stephen J. Wilcox (Jan 24)
- Re: traffic filtering Jared Mauch (Jan 21)
- Re: traffic filtering Niels Bakker (Jan 27)