Home page logo
/

nanog logo nanog mailing list archives

Re: Network Operators and smurf
From: Havard.Eidnes () runit sintef no
Date: Sat, 25 Apr 1998 18:19:26 +0200

2. Routers/Gateways should be configured to drop all packets
with invalid source addresses.

The problem is us.  This isn't a research network run and
maintained by the knowledgable.  This is a business.  We're
selling a product, and if we expect it to operate as
advertised, it's up to us to educate those we sell it to.

The problem isn't us.  It's cicso, and Bay, and Ascend,
and... everyone who won't put an anti-forging filter on their
border routers so we _can_ turn it on.  The first time someone
co-sues cisco, it'll get fixed with 30 days.

Current recipe for anti-forging with Cisco hardware:

 o Pick up CEF code (11.1(17)CC, which doesn't yet (?) exist for all
   Cisco platforms, unfortunately)

 o Configure:

   !
   ip cef switch
   ! or "ip cef distributed switch" for an RSP+VIP2 based box
   !
   interface whatever
     ip verify unicast reverse-path
   !

This should (naturally) be implemented where routing is symmetric
and where a "reverse-path check" (looking up the source address in
the routing table to find the "expected" incoming interface and
checking whether the packet did indeed enter through that interface)
makes sense.  If you have Ascend/Livingston or other dial-up
equipment this check should probably be implemented in the closest
up-stream router which has this capability, and definately not in a
router which could take part in asymmetric traffic patterns.


- HÃ¥vard


  By Date           By Thread  

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