> > > You miss the point. It is unrelated to responding to broadcast pings > -- thats perfectly fine behavior. The problem is one of sending to the > broadcast address by accident, because that allows you to reply to a > packet who's source address is the broadcast address without realizing > that you might do so. > > .pm Well, with some help I've managed to conduct some experiments on udp broadcast packets and the echo port...I was testing on an ethernet with two Suns, an LX (Solaris2) and a SS2 (SunOS 4)...it went something like this: 10.1.2.0,echo -> 10.1.2.0,echo (forged packet) 10.1.2.1,echo -> 10.1.2.0,echo 10.1.2.2,echo -> 10.1.2.0,echo 10.1.2.2,echo -> 10.1.2.1,echo 10.1.2.1,echo -> 10.1.2.2,echo 10.1.2.2,echo -> 10.1.2.1,echo 10.1.2.1,echo -> 10.1.2.2,echo ... and it is still going on :-) With just these two hosts, continually going at each other, ping from one to the other still averages 1ms...using spray (maybe this ain't such a good measure): 10.1.2.1 /> spray -c 1000 -l 1480 10.1.2.2 sending 1000 packets of lnth 1482 to 10.1.2.2 ... in 10.7 seconds elapsed time, 585 packets (58.50%) dropped Sent: 93 packets/sec, 135.0K bytes/sec Rcvd: 38 packets/sec, 56.0K bytes/sec Darren