From: Troy Davis [mailto:troy@nack.net] Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2000 9:49 AM
On Tue, 26 Sep 2000, Roeland M.J. Meyer <rmeyer@MHSC.com> wrote:
I know that all of you are aware of this. Granted, each subsequently smaller subnet also limits the maximum number of hosts that will respond to the smurf trigger. The point is that, the web-site ONLY tests 0 and
Actually, that's often not the case. Through NAT and other modern marvels, it's possible to have massively overpopulated netblocks that all respond. The largest amplifier we've found yet was 170,000x (on a class C).
Thank you Troy, However my point remains.
On Tue, 26 Sep 2000, Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
From: Troy Davis [mailto:troy@nack.net] Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2000 9:49 AM
On Tue, 26 Sep 2000, Roeland M.J. Meyer <rmeyer@MHSC.com> wrote:
I know that all of you are aware of this. Granted, each subsequently smaller subnet also limits the maximum number of hosts that will respond to the smurf trigger. The point is that, the web-site ONLY tests 0 and
Actually, that's often not the case. Through NAT and other modern marvels, it's possible to have massively overpopulated netblocks that all respond. The largest amplifier we've found yet was 170,000x (on a class C).
Thank you Troy, However my point remains.
Roeland, I believe that during the last run, netscan tested down to the /27 boundry. While I agree that this isn't as complete as testing down to the /30 boundry, even testing to the /24 boundry provides more information than not testing at all. Additionally, the website indicates that there will be another test down to the /27 boundry. --- John Fraizer EnterZone, Inc
participants (2)
-
John Fraizer -
Roeland M.J. Meyer