Re: Where are static bogon filters appropriate? was: 96.2.0.0/16 Bogons

From: Steven M. Bellovin (no email)
Date: Thu Mar 01 2007 - 21:08:59 EST

  • Next message: Steven M. Bellovin: "Re: FCC on wifi at hotel"

    On Thu, 01 Mar 2007 14:22:37 +0000 (GMT)
    "Chris L. Morrow" <> wrote:

    >
    > On Thu, 1 Mar 2007, Jon Lewis wrote:
    >
    > > On Wed, 28 Feb 2007, Eric Ortega wrote:
    > >
    > > > I'd like to thank the group for the responses and help with this
    > > > issue. I find it ironic that Randy's study actually uses 96 space.
    > >
    > > The amazing/sad thing is that people have been facing and fixing
    > > the same problem for more than 4 years. How many times does a
    > > network have to fix their static bogon filters before coming to the
    > > realization that those filters are a bad idea?
    >
    > So, where are static bogon filters appropriate? (loaded question
    > perhaps) I ask because just about every 'security expert' and
    > 'security whitepaper' or 'security suggestions' has some portion that
    > speaks to "why it's a grand idea to have acl-lines/firewall-policy tp
    > block 'bogon' ip space" (for some definition of 'bogon' of course).
    >
    Well, not all of us advocate that; see
    http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/nanog/2006-01/msg00150.html

                    --Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb


  • Next message: Steven M. Bellovin: "Re: FCC on wifi at hotel"





    Hosted Email Solutions

    Invaluement Anti-Spam DNSBLs



    Powered By FreeBSD   Powered By FreeBSD