> I don't get it. A Smurf attack is just packets, right? I've seen our 3640
> handle a whole lot more than a saturated T-1 worth of packets. In fact,
Ah...but were they all little tiny ones? With that sort of attack, the
pps is a large part of the problem. The other is that if the smurf attack
is at all effective, your provider will have much more traffic to deliver
to you than your pipe can accomodate, causing various "bad things" to
happen ranging from severe packet loss to link flapping. If the flapping
is bad enough, I imagine BGP would start eating CPU time too.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Lewis <jlewis@fdt.net> | Spammers will be winnuked or
Network Administrator | drawn and quartered...whichever
Florida Digital Turnpike | is more convenient.
______http://inorganic5.fdt.net/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key____
-
To unsubscribe, email 'majordomo@livingston.com' with
'unsubscribe portmaster-users' in the body of the message.
Searchable list archive: <URL:http://www.livingston.com/Tech/archive/>