Re: What were we saying about edge filtering?

[Sean Donelan <sean () donelan com>]

On Mon, 8 Sep 2003 bdragon () gweep net wrote:
> > keep in mind its not destination addresses that are the problem here, BUT
> > if it was, on an experiment (not a very smart one) we routed 0/1 to a lab
> > system inside 701 once in 2001 (as I recall, so before
> > nimda/code-red/blaster) and recieved +600kpps of garbage traffic as a
> > result. Trying to acl/analyze/deal-with that flow was almost impossible...
> > I'm not sure what you want to do with it today when our 'sinkhole' network
> > is consistently handling +20kpps (5x previous) MORE of random garbage
> > than 3 weeks ago, before blaster/nachi started to cause more pain :(
>
> Just think, if you used loose uRPF, you wouldn't need to carry that traffic
> to your sinkhole network, even you win.

Don't confuse the source and destination. This traffic is packets with an
unused DESTINATION address.

loose uRPF has *NO* effect on the destination address.

Which is greater in a typical backbone?  Traffic with a bogon source, or
traffic with a bogon destination entering the backbone?