Re: Packets from 255.255.255.255(80) (was: Packet from port 80 with spoofed microsoft.com ip)

From: Valdis.Kletnieksat_private
Date: Mon Feb 03 2003 - 11:04:52 PST

  • Next message: zmajd fully: "Re: Packet from port 80 with spoofed microsoft.com ip"

    On Mon, 03 Feb 2003 10:40:02 EST, Joel Tyson <jtysonat_private>  said:
    
    > The best way to handle these types of packets would be to route them to a
    > null0 interface.  This way the packets will be dropped without icmp response.
    > Typically all ISP should have these ACL's configured on their border routers;
    > but they don't.  
    
    There's not much financial incentive for many ISPs to filter - when you're
    billing based on traffic volume, you don't really want all those probes to
    go away.  So what if 20% of the traffic is probes?  That's 20% more income
    for the provider, and many providers are in a financial crunch - that 20%
    may be all that's keeping them afloat.  As long as they don't get burned by
    an SQL worm that takes out their infrastructure too, why should the filter?
    
    /Valdis (who is having a more-cynical-than-usual day)
    
    
    



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Feb 04 2003 - 10:34:25 PST