Re: ICMP: Source quench?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Tue, 04 Jul 2000 09:45:14 +0100 (BST), Glynn Clements wrote:

>Ralf G. R. Bergs wrote:
>
>> > > > Personally I suggest allowing the following ICMP types:
>> > > >          0      Echo Reply
>> > > >          3      Destination Unreachable
>> > > >         11      Time Exceeded
>> > > >         12      Parameter Problem
>> > 
>> > 0 is optional but useful, 11 can be used for certain kinds of DoS 
attack 
>> > against some hosts.
>> 
>> Does that mean you would suggest to drop 11? Or would I break things 
(apart 
>> from DoS attacks, of course ;-) if I'de filter 11?
>
>If you drop 11:
>
>a) outbound traceroute won't work (if you don't use traceroute, then
>you probably should drop type 11), and

I *do* need traceroute, therefore I can't drop it. But thanks for 
enlightening me.

>b) routing loops could go unreported; this shouldn't really matter
>unless your network is sufficiently complex that routing loops are a
>realistic possibility.

This isn't realistic for my little home network. :-)

Thanks,

Ralf


-- 
Sign the EU petition against SPAM:          L I N U X       .~.
http://www.politik-digital.de/spam/        The  Choice      /V\
                                            of a  GNU      /( )\
                                           Generation      ^^-^^


-
: send the line "unsubscribe linux-net" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu


[Index of Archives]     [Netdev]     [Ethernet Bridging]     [Linux 802.1Q VLAN]     [Linux Wireless]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Security]     [Linux for Hams]     [Netfilter]     [Git]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News and Information]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux PCI]     [Linux Admin]     [Samba]

  Powered by Linux