Home page logo
/

nanog logo nanog mailing list archives

Re: SMURF amplifier block list
From: "Jay R. Ashworth" <jra () scfn thpl lib fl us>
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 15:36:45 -0400

On Tue, Apr 14, 1998 at 08:49:04AM -0700, Aaron Beck wrote:
On Mon, 13 Apr 1998, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
Then again, filtering any packets to or from x.x.x.255 would have a
similar but more profound effect.  Anyone who actually uses a .255
address for a host is asking for trouble anyways.

the problem with that thinking, of course, is going to crop up when you
encounter /23's and greater.

No, IMHO, the comment stands: no matter _what_ size your network is, if
you assign host addresses with a .0 or .255 final octet, things may
break, and you deserve what you get.

Cheers,
-- jra
-- 
Jay R. Ashworth                                                jra () baylink com
Member of the Technical Staff             Unsolicited Commercial Emailers Sued
The Suncoast Freenet      "Two words: Darth Doogie."  -- Jason Colby,
Tampa Bay, Florida             on alt.fan.heinlein             +1 813 790 7592

Managing Editor, Top Of The Key sports e-zine ------------ http://www.totk.com


  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]