Firewalls: Re: Re[2]: NT NAT

Firewalls
(January 1997)

Indexed By Thread: [Previous] [Next]

Subject:	Re: Re[2]: NT NAT
From:	peter @ baileynm . com (Peter da Silva)
Date:	Sat, 4 Jan 1997 19:00:09 -0600 (CST)
To:	ckn @ findata . se
Cc:	firewalls @ GreatCircle . COM
In-reply-to:	<Pine . SUN . 3 . 93 . 970105005820 . 22843A-100000 @ wintermute . marievik . findata . se> from "Carl Karlsson" at Jan 5, 97 01:16:33 am

> Do I need to care about
> source routed packets if my upstream provider has everything configured
> as they should?

Yes. Don't depend on a third party maintaining a configuration correctly
for the proper operation of your firewall.

> If I am using for example Linux, would it be enough to
> configure the linux kernel to drop source routed packets?

I don't know. It's a sysctl option in FreeBSD.

Follow-Ups:

Re: Re[2]: NT NAT
From: Ambrose Li <news-misc @ mingpaoxpress . com>
Re: Re[2]: NT NAT
From: Ron DuFresne <dufresne @ parka . winternet . com>

References:

Re: Re[2]: NT NAT
From: Carl Karlsson <ckn @ findata . se>

Indexed By Date	Previous:	Re: Re[2]: NT NAT From: Paul Ferguson <pferguso @ cisco . com>
Indexed By Date	Next:	Slow down From: "Mr. S Armitage" <armo @ mint . u-net . com>
Indexed By Thread	Previous:	Re: Re[2]: NT NAT From: Carl Karlsson <ckn @ findata . se>
Indexed By Thread	Next:	Re: Re[2]: NT NAT From: Ron DuFresne <dufresne @ parka . winternet . com>