nanog mailing list archives
Re: SMURF amplifier block list
From: Jeff Weisberg <jaw () Op Net>
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 18:05:33 -0400 (EDT)
|
| 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.
around here, we use 'em (.0 too). 'course ARIN makes me justify my
utilization before they give me more, so I try to use addresses as
efficiently as possible. do others not have this constraint?
--jeff
----
Dear Mr. Arin,
Thank you for the addresses you gave me previously. I now need
more. I have efficiently used the ones you gave me. Sort of. I
skipped over addresses ending with .0 and .255. Oh, and those
ending in .13 too.
Thank you,
Mr. Isp Guy
Current thread:
- Re: SMURF amplifier block list, (continued)
- Re: SMURF amplifier block list Jay R. Ashworth (Apr 17)
- Re: SMURF amplifier block list barton (Apr 12)
- Re: SMURF amplifier block list Chris Liljenstolpe (Apr 13)
- Re: SMURF amplifier block list Vadim Antonov (Apr 13)
- Re: SMURF amplifier block list Hank Nussbacher (Apr 14)
- Re: SMURF amplifier block list Forrest W. Christian (Apr 14)
- Re: SMURF amplifier block list jlixfeld (Apr 17)
- Re: SMURF amplifier block list Dean Anderson (Apr 17)
- Re: SMURF amplifier block list Forrest W. Christian (Apr 14)
- Re: SMURF amplifier block list Hank Nussbacher (Apr 14)
- Re: SMURF amplifier block list Charley Kline (Apr 14)
- Re: SMURF amplifier block list Jeff Weisberg (Apr 14)
- Re: SMURF amplifier block list Stan Barber (Apr 14)
- SMURF amplifier block list Jaap Kreijkamp (Apr 29)
