nanog mailing list archives

Re: Smurf tone down


From: alex () nac net
Date: Sat, 1 May 1999 12:16:43 -0400 (EDT)


On Sat, 1 May 1999, Joe  Shaw wrote:

After dealing with UUNet security regarding several smurf incidents I
asked them this same question.  Their response (and I'm sure it would be
the same response of others) was that a lot of the routers on their
network couldn't handle the load of using CEF-CAR to limit smurf attacks.

"the load" ?

The point of CAR is that is happens in the CEF path, with no/negligible (1
to 2%) additional load. Are UUNet's routers running that close to the
edge? I'd doubt it.

I'm not sure how true that statement was since I'm not familiar with any
part of UUNet's backbone equipment other than what I used to get my DS3
from at Insync and now with my MAE Houston connection, but from what I've
heard the backbones of a lot of NSP's aren't all made up of Cisco 12000's
or even 7500's, and I'd guess a fair amount of the existing routers out
there are borderline overloaded since it's next to impossible to get most
backbone providers to filter traffic when you're under attack.  UUNet
certainly wouldn't for us because of "router CPU overhead" last time I was
under attack.

What does a 'sho cdp nei' show on your uu-net connecting router?


-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
     Atheism is a non-prophet organization. I route, therefore I am.
       Alex Rubenstein, alex () nac net, KC2BUO, ISP/C Charter Member
               Father of the Network and Head Bottle-Washer
     Net Access Corporation, 9 Mt. Pleasant Tpk., Denville, NJ 07834
 Don't choose a spineless ISP; we have more backbone!  http://www.nac.net
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --




Current thread: