...

...

Paul Ferguson <ferguson@cisco.com> 05/11/00 05:14PM >>> How is this substantially different than RFC2644, "Changing

The solution suggested by RFC2644 is for routers only, while the proposed solution is intended for end-nodes. If DDoS Smurf attack is generated using local broadcast, RFC2644 solution won't prevent the attack. Read carefully the last paragraph of Section 1 of the draft. Vipul the Default for Directed Broadcasts in Routers"? http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2644.txt - paul At 10:13 PM 05/10/2000 -0600, Vipul Shah wrote:

Hi All,

I'd like to bring your attention to a recent Internet-draft. The URL is:

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-vshah-ddos-smurf-00.txt

This draft proposes a specific (simple) change to RFC1122 which would help reduce the use of Smurf amplification in DDOS attacks. This is augments ingress filtering; it is designed specifically for the case where the attacker (source) is using broadcast on the local LAN as part of a DDOS attack. This is a case where ingress filtering does not help.

We are proposing that it be an addition to the standard set by RFC1122. We'd very much like to hear comments from people on this draft.

Vipul