nanog mailing list archives
Re: Odd DDoS, anyone else seen this?
From: variable () ednet co uk
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 14:18:33 +0000 (GMT)
On Mon, 25 Nov 2002, Chris Roberts wrote:
Yer, some dial providers that I've seen do it to make use of these addresses, as x.x.x.0/32 is a perfectly valid host address.
I've seen this too. Dialup boxes that use dynamic pools prefer them to start on a subnet boundry so that they can announce a single aggregate route for the whole pool. However we ran into problems with using x.x.x.0 before (think it was a broken TCP/IP from some vendor or another) and so we moved the dynamic pools further up the subnet. Rich
Current thread:
- Odd DDoS, anyone else seen this? Stephen J. Wilcox (Nov 25)
- Re: Odd DDoS, anyone else seen this? variable (Nov 25)
- Re: Odd DDoS, anyone else seen this? Stephen J. Wilcox (Nov 25)
- Re: Odd DDoS, anyone else seen this? variable (Nov 25)
- Re: Odd DDoS, anyone else seen this? Valdis . Kletnieks (Nov 25)
- Re: Odd DDoS, anyone else seen this? Stephen J. Wilcox (Nov 25)
- Re: Odd DDoS, anyone else seen this? Christopher L. Morrow (Nov 25)
- Re: Odd DDoS, anyone else seen this? jlewis (Nov 25)
- Re: Odd DDoS, anyone else seen this? Joel Jaeggli (Nov 25)
- Message not available
- Re: Odd DDoS, anyone else seen this? Joe Provo (Nov 26)
- Re: Odd DDoS, anyone else seen this? variable (Nov 25)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: Odd DDoS, anyone else seen this? variable (Nov 25)
- Re: Odd DDoS, anyone else seen this? Stephen J. Wilcox (Nov 25)