- Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: Filtering Source Addresses on gw-internet
by Tony Li 15 Aug '97

15 Aug '97

jlewis(a)inorganic5.fdt.net (Jon Lewis) writes: > I vaguely remember hearing somewhere that routing to a loopback interface > was better than null0 for feeding unwanted packets into a black hole. Is > that case perhaps not process switched? Nope, sorry. Also process switched. The hack to drop things fast is to find a lightly loaded LAN interface and then forward it all to a non-existant system on that LAN. Of course, you'll have to manually configure an ARP entry for the bogon. Tony

1 0

Re: Filtering Source Addresses on gw-internet
by Greg Ketell 15 Aug '97

15 Aug '97

One of the IS group Engineers ran some tests in the lab. (Thanks Craig). It appears that, unfortunately, policy routing packets to Null0 is also a process switched operation. Apparently Null0 does not qualify as a Point-to-point interface with regards to the Set Interface command. GK

2 1

None
by dts＠rtd.com 15 Aug '97

15 Aug '97

Can someone send me information regarding hotel costs for NANOG in Phoenix? E-mail is fine.

1 0

US Domestic line costs?
by Adrian Bool 14 Aug '97

14 Aug '97

Hi, Could anyone give me any hints as to an averge charge you would expect for a T1 between Washington and New York? Thanks aid -- Adrian J Bool | mailto:aid@u-net.net Network Operations | http://www.u-net.net/ U-NET Ltd | tel://+44.1925.484461/

4 9

Re: [CISCO] directed-broadcast, ip classless
by brandon＠rd.bbc.co.uk 14 Aug '97

14 Aug '97

> }----------------------------------------------------- > }CASE: H87037 > }OPENED: 05-AUG-97 > }DESCRIPTION: make "ip classless" default for ISP IOS images > }----------------------------------------------------- > } > }The "ip classless" is important since various folks have chunks > }of former class A address space but do not have the entire former > }class A. For example, @Home has a small slice of 24.x.x.x, > }but several other providers are also in 24.x.x.x. > In other words, don't waste your breath screaming at them about > something they decided to change a long time ago. Almost serious:- how about changing the request to ask for an "ip clueless" command for those that can't set their routers up so the rest of the net can't be easily spammed? Brandon

1 0

Re: [CISCO] directed-broadcast, ip classless
by rja＠corp.home.net 14 Aug '97

14 Aug '97

Jeff, Thanks for your note. I hope you are correct. Personally, I haven't been screaming at anyone. I _have_ been told by cisco that they are reluctant to change the "ip classless" to be default. Stated reason is that folks prefer classful addressing. If cisco ISP folks can speak on the record about this matter to the NANOG list, it would be useful IMHO. Ran

2 1

Re: US Domestic line costs?
by Alex Rubenstein 14 Aug '97

14 Aug '97

$1500 to $3000, depending on how good your MFS rep is. At 04:40 PM 8/14/97 +0100, Adrian Bool wrote: > >Hi, > >Could anyone give me any hints as to an averge charge you would >expect for a T1 between Washington and New York? > >Thanks > >aid > > >-- >Adrian J Bool | mailto:aid@u-net.net >Network Operations | http://www.u-net.net/ >U-NET Ltd | tel://+44.1925.484461/ > > > --- "Don't go with a spineless ISP; we have more backbone." Alex Rubenstein -- alex(a)nac.net -- KC2BUO -- www.nac.net net @ccess corporation, 201-983-0725 -- 201-983-0725

1 0

Re: [CISCO] directed-broadcast, ip classless
by Jeffrey S. Curtis 14 Aug '97

14 Aug '97

Ran Atkinson writes: } [...] }----------------------------------------------------- }CASE: H87037 }OPENED: 05-AUG-97 }DESCRIPTION: make "ip classless" default for ISP IOS images }----------------------------------------------------- } }The "ip classless" is important since various folks have chunks }of former class A address space but do not have the entire former }class A. For example, @Home has a small slice of 24.x.x.x, }but several other providers are also in 24.x.x.x. No lobbying required here. As of (I believe) 11.2(1), "no ip classless" would show up in cisco configurations as a default command, which means that they're likely going to change it to "ip classless" in the next major release. cisco's modus operandi when it comes to changing default behavior of commands is to spend one major release with the command in the configuration regardless of whether it's on or off, and then to change the new default behavior in the next major release. In other words, don't waste your breath screaming at them about something they decided to change a long time ago. Jeff -- Jeffrey S. Curtis | Internetwork Manager Argonne National Laboratory | Email: curtis(a)anl.gov 9700 South Cass Avenue, ECT-221 | Voice: 630/252-1789 Argonne, IL 60439 | Fax: 630/252-9689

1 0

ATTENDEE LIST
by Pam Ciesla 14 Aug '97

14 Aug '97

I have added an Attendee List to the NANOG Web Page. If you are not on the list and should be let me know. Thanks Pam xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Pam Ciesla 313-936-0172 - phone Merit Network, Inc. 313-647-3185 - fax University of Michigan 4251 Plymouth Road Bldg. I, Suite C Ann Arbor, MI 48105-2785 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

1 0

Re: Filtering Source Addresses on gw-internet
by Greg Ketell 14 Aug '97

14 Aug '97

Sorry for the delay. I am in all-day meetings through the end of the week. If Null0 were a standard interface I would say "yes, definitely a better method". But since it isn't, I am not sure. I will try to find out and post tomorrow night (unless someone else from cisco (or formerly from cisco) pops up the answer first. GK >Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 06:46:58 -0400 (EDT) >From: "C. Jon Larsen" <jlarsen(a)ajtech.com> >To: Greg Ketell <gketell(a)cisco.com> >cc: nanog(a)merit.edu >Subject: Re: Filtering Source Addresses on gw-internet > >Much thanks to everyone for their input. Greg, since you have "Cisco" in your >email address, any comment on whether sending packets to a null interface is a >quicker / more efficient way blocking unwanted traffic ? gw-internet is a >little old 68030, with 1MB RAM. > >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> >> At 03:05 PM 8/12/97 -0400, C. Jon Larsen wrote: >> >gw-internet#show access-lists 120 >> >Extended IP access list 120 >> > deny ip any 10.0.0.0 0.255.255.255 log >> > deny ip any 172.16.0.0 0.0.255.255 log >> > deny ip any 172.17.0.0 0.0.255.255 log >> > deny ip any 192.168.0.0 0.0.255.255 log >> > permit ip a.b.c.0 0.0.0.255 any (27429 matches) >> > deny ip any any log >> >> Line 2 and 3 could be replaced by >> deny ip any 172.16.0.0 0.15.255.255 log >> >> which would block all 172.16.0.0-172.31.0.0 as per the RFC. >> >> You might also want to block 127.0.0.0. >> >> GK >> >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >> Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0 >> Charset: noconv >> >> iQEVAwUBM/DBxW384++etaQJAQGlwAgAoVjoB5EZCaYjzvmwWaVeO5zOPTipegDE >> 0TX2Xg2L5yIClAeiWD4f0T4E4jCH5BtSwoitlu9fcHlsPo4VRwOutQssIJHL+sUR >> Ps1NEot6pwOu+slCwklLhqVwyouv0UHI0Fxal5aCM65X+WNH8+5HvE9g4uBQp8A6 >> o6HzM++69FKwg8pdQ82HNnjToVZxsqwH41HNSHC0HjLvJG+uZPBFlzLEdnvkNSRg >> fikSERpnZAa+QzpTRjtTcK3XC2DEYGAi0wifn9mbyRav9xenzvNl+rUV5Fg/jbFS >> jDFhiLFJc/7o3Y5+9HoA9keBEqeFMle86BGjX09C1FKLtPnVhTwSpQ== >> =ZNYx >> -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- >> >> > > >Linux. > >+-------------------+---------------------+ >| C. Jon Larsen | jlarsen(a)ajtech.com | >| Systems Engineer | Tel: 804.353.2800 | >| A&J Technologies | | >|-------------------+---------------------| >| http://www.ajtech.com | >+-----------------------------------------+ > > >

1 0