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

From: Robert E. Seastrom (no email)
Date: Fri Mar 02 2007 - 07:12:32 EST

  • Next message: Roland Dobbins: "Re: Where are static bogon filters appropriate? was: 96.2.0.0/16 Bogons"

    Roland Dobbins <> writes:

    > On Mar 1, 2007, at 1:10 PM, Chris L. Morrow wrote:
    >
    >> So... again, are bogon filters 'in the core' useful? (call 'core' some
    >> network not yours)
    >
    > Antispoofing is 'static' and therefore brittle in nature, people
    > change jobs, etc. - so, we shouldn't do antispoofing, either?

    Unicast RPF is neither static nor brittle, and we should do it.

    I agree with smb though in somewhat less diplomatic terms - bogon
    filtering by end sites is the sort of thing that is recommended by
    "experts" for whom "security" is an end in and of itself, rather than
    a component of the arsenal you bring forth (backups, DR, spares,
    multihoming, etc) to improve uptime and business availability and
    decrease potential risk.

    For people who recommend cures that are as bad as the disease, we
    recommend one of these: http://despair.com/consulting.html

                                            ---Rob


  • Next message: Roland Dobbins: "Re: Where are static bogon filters appropriate? was: 96.2.0.0/16 Bogons"





    Hosted Email Solutions

    Invaluement Anti-Spam DNSBLs



    Powered By FreeBSD   Powered By FreeBSD