Subject: Re: traceroute as a flooder (fwd)
To: Michael Graff <email@example.com>
From: Curt Sampson <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 02/17/1999 22:31:11
On 16 Feb 1999, Michael Graff wrote:
> Curt Sampson <email@example.com> writes:
> > Certainly we can't leave things as they are, however. Nor can we
> > allow random users to generate return addresses of 127.0.0.1. I
> > suppose we could allow loopback interface addresses, but disallow
> > 127.* addresses. But I'm not terribly keen on that, because it's
> > more work (for me to write :-)) and because I'm not convinced all
> > other loopback interface addresses would be valid.
> This is a moot point, I believe.
> Clearly 127.* isn't a wire address, but any other address should be
> ok, since I could just bind() to it and send UDP packets myself.
> If I can do that as a user, what's the harm in allowing me to tell
> traceroute to use it?
Hm. Well, I'm not entirely sure about this without doing a bunch
of testing that I don't have time to do, but it sounds reasonable
enough to me. Do you want to implement it?
Curt Sampson <firstname.lastname@example.org> 604 801 5335 De gustibus, aut bene aut nihil.
The most widely ported operating system in the world: http://www.netbsd.org