Home page logo
/

nanog logo nanog mailing list archives

Re: Network Operators and smurf
From: "Jay R. Ashworth" <jra () scfn thpl lib fl us>
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1998 19:06:14 -0400

On Fri, Apr 24, 1998 at 06:06:50PM -0500, John A. Tamplin wrote:
On Fri, 24 Apr 1998, Karl Denninger wrote:
Well, there is a simple knob for this:
If the Knob is turned "ON", then any packet from a source address which is 
not routed to the interface it came in on is dropped.
This works for static, dynamic, and all other kinds of routing.    It will
solve the problem and is trivial to implement - if any of the vendors care.

It doesn't work for asymmetric routing as you describe it above. If you
modify your criteria to be that there are no valid routes out that
interface, you would only break transient routing conditions, but
depending on how the router stores routes it may not be possible (or
desirable due to memory requirements) to implement. 

Yeah, John, we know that.  But I've rarely seen a /32 with asymmetric
routing.  The vast majority (I speculate) of these problems happen on
the far side of border routers which are unlikely to be participating
in ASR, are they not?  How far down is it being used?

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 ]