North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: Effective ways to deal with DDoS attacks?

  • From: Stephen Griffin
  • Date: Fri May 03 15:07:03 2002

In the referenced message, Eric Gauthier said:
<snip>
> Another limitation that we've found with uRPF is that it doesn't 
> live well with multihomed systems (i.e. a host with two NIC's - each on 
> a different subnet) because of the way most OS'es handle their
> default gateways.  For anyone who is interested in our experience, drop me 
> a note off list.  If you have a solution for this multihoming problem, PLEASE 
> email me off-list.
> 
> Eric :)
> 

Most Cisco boxes have 3 related modes of uRPF:
1) pure RPF, if forwarding path back to source doesn't go via interface
packet received from, then dump. I believe, but am not positive, that
it will handle equal-cost-multipath ok in situations where that exists.
2) acl exceptions, if source matches the acl, allow the packet
3) not-so-pure RPF, if there is _any_ forwarding path back to the source
via _any_ interface, then accept.

for single-homed customers, simple uRPF
for multihomed customers, acl exceptions based upon their registered
IRR-policy, since the customer should already be registering in the IRR
you have a list of all networks reachable via the customer, regardless of
the actual real-time announcements or policy applications (prepending,
localpref tweaks, etc)
for peers that are clued-in, again acl exceptions based upon the peers
registered policy
for non-clued peers, accept based upon any available forwarding path
[hopefully, by the 100th time you beat on the peer about spoofed crud
coming from them, they'll get religion and register, since you'll have
less overall spoofing to track down, you can devote it to slapping
them around more]

you should also in/egress filter known bogons at all borders, like
src/dst in rfc1918
src/dst in class e
src in class d (not dest, however)
etc