nanog mailing list archives
Re: spare swamp space?
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike () swm pp se>
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 08:34:12 +0200 (MET DST)
On Wed, 19 Aug 1998, Alex Bligh wrote:
Effectively this means that if your public IP gets smurfed, it's b/w usage internally on your network is limited. If your private IP gets smurfed, it all gets dropped (thinking about it if you made exceptions for IRC peering you could do the whole thing on one IP if your customers never use border router i/fs). If you are paying per bit, you'll still pay for smurfs, but they'll have to be 45Mb/s in size to cause any real damage. You'll probably find BGP flapping up and down as your T1 saturates is more of a problem.
I believe the major point was that the smurfed traffic shouldnt be routed at all outside of the provider that hasnt fixed their smurf-relays, bringing down the impact on transit providers as well...? ----- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike () swm pp se
Current thread:
- spare swamp space? Brandon Ross (Aug 19)
- Re: spare swamp space? steve (Aug 19)
- Re: spare swamp space? Alex Bligh (Aug 19)
- Re: spare swamp space? Mikael Abrahamsson (Aug 19)
- Re: spare swamp space? Brandon Ross (Aug 24)
- Re: spare swamp space? Steven nash (Aug 21)
- Re: spare swamp space? Alex Bligh (Aug 19)
- Re: spare swamp space? Steven nash (Aug 21)
- Re: spare swamp space? Alex Bligh (Aug 19)
- Re: spare swamp space? Jason Lixfeld (Aug 21)
- Re: spare swamp space? Brandon Ross (Aug 24)
- Re: spare swamp space? Mikael Abrahamsson (Aug 19)
- Re: spare swamp space? Jason Lixfeld (Aug 21)