Hi,
Sorry for not making it clear. I believe RFC 2644
actually suggested that routers MUST default to
disabling directed broadcast except explicitly
configured to do so. But I guess one can never
be too careful. :-)
yushun.
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Yu-Shun Wang writes:
: I think it's specified in RFC 2644. It might be useful
: to site it in the comments of the code.
There were several incidents in the early days of the internet when
this functionality was in place that caused all kinds of problems.
Hi,
I think it's specified in RFC 2644. It might be useful
to site it in the comments of the code.
Regards,
yushun.
Yu-Shun Wang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Information Sciences I
On Thu, Aug 09, 2001 at 12:57:47PM -0400, Bill Vermillion wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 09, 2001 at 12:30:56PM -0400, Jonathan Chen thus sprach:
> > On Thu, Aug 09, 2001 at 12:23:52PM -0400, Bill Vermillion wrote:
> > > On Thu, Aug 09, 2001 at 11:36:38AM -0400, Jonathan Chen thus sprach:
> > >
> > > > On
>We had directed-broadcast forwarding before, and it was removed.
>Perhaps someone might examine the CVS logs to see when and why.
| Revision 1.32 / Dec 20 1995 (5 years, 7 months ago) by wollman
|
| Demolish DIRECTED_BROADCAST. It was always a bad idea, and nobody uses it.
I don't feel as s
< said:
> So, your patch just adds the mentioned option -- which I'm fine with,
> as long as the default is 0 as the RFC requires...
We had directed-broadcast forwarding before, and it was removed.
Perhaps someone might examine the CVS logs to see when and why.
-GAWollman
To Unsubscribe: send
On Thu, Aug 09, 2001 at 12:30:56PM -0400, Jonathan Chen thus sprach:
> On Thu, Aug 09, 2001 at 12:23:52PM -0400, Bill Vermillion wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 09, 2001 at 11:36:38AM -0400, Jonathan Chen thus sprach:
> >
> > > On FreeBSD -CURRENT and -STABLE, packets to broadcast addresses
> > > are n
>On FreeBSD -CURRENT and -STABLE, packets to broadcast addresses are not
>forwarded.
"smurf" attacks love using broadcast forwarders.
RFC 2644 says:
> A router MAY have an option to enable receiving network-prefix-
> directed broadcasts on an interface and MAY have an option to
>
>One more thing, -CURRENT will stuff two copies of any broadcast into bpf,
>it seems.
This is because if_simloop() is broken. I proposed to un-break it
a while ago and never got any feedback.
http://www.FreeBSD.org/cgi/getmsg.cgi?fetch=198310+201485+/usr/local/www/db/text/2001/freebsd-net/200
On Thu, Aug 09, 2001 at 12:23:52PM -0400, Bill Vermillion wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 09, 2001 at 11:36:38AM -0400, Jonathan Chen thus sprach:
>
> > On FreeBSD -CURRENT and -STABLE, packets to broadcast addresses
> > are not forwarded. For instance, if I have a FreeBSD router with
> > interfaces 19
On Thu, Aug 09, 2001 at 09:20:55AM -0700, Matthew Jacob wrote:
>
> I haven't consulted the RFCs either, but, ahem, I thought this was a major
> point of netmasks and routers and why multicast was invented- to keep
> broadcasts from clogging the world.
It would be nice if all applications support
On Thu, Aug 09, 2001 at 11:36:38AM -0400, Jonathan Chen thus sprach:
> On FreeBSD -CURRENT and -STABLE, packets to broadcast addresses
> are not forwarded. For instance, if I have a FreeBSD router with
> interfaces 192.168.1.1 and 192.168.2.1, and I send packets from
> 192.168.1.2 to 192.
I haven't consulted the RFCs either, but, ahem, I thought this was a major
point of netmasks and routers and why multicast was invented- to keep
broadcasts from clogging the world.
-matt
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
> On FreeBSD -CURRENT and -STABLE, packets to broadcast addresses are not
> forwarded. For instance, if I have a FreeBSD router with interfaces
I think it is correct NOT to forward local or subnet broadcasts --
it would be evil to let let an external node flood a subnet
with broadcast traffic.
14 matches
Mail list logo
