[c-nsp] SUP720 - 12.2(18)SXF17

[Drew Weaver]

Not to fault Cisco, or anyone else for that matter but shouldn't switches that cost a quarter of a million dollars be able to protect themselves from these sorts of things just as a default?

Just thinking out loud...



-----Original Message-----
From: Phil Mayers [mailto:p.mayers at imperial.ac.uk] 
Sent: Saturday, October 03, 2009 8:15 AM
To: Drew Weaver
Cc: 'rodunn at cisco.com'; cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] SUP720 - 12.2(18)SXF17

Drew Weaver wrote:
> That whole TTL exceeded thing is a real problem these days, huh?

When you have an application as badly-written as ghost (seriously: it's 
awful, awful, awful stuff) then it could probably find a way to break 
the network regardless.

But yes, splurging a 30gig hard-disk image out over multicast with TTL=1 
on the packets will definitely cause TTL-exceeded problems ;o)