Quote:
I don't think that will have much effect, since x.x.x.255 is not normally a valid host address (EDIT: from the point of view of the DI-524 with an 8-bit submask).

I assume you mean "24-bit subnet mask."

Even before CIDR, though, 67.181.106.255 was a perfectly valid host address, as 67 was a Class-A network whose only well-known broadcast address was 67.255.255.255. (Not to say it couldn't have been subnetted so that 67.181.106.255 was a broadcast address for the subnet.) But no computer anywhere should assume that that is a broadcast address without specific knowledge of the network involved.

In other words, there should be zero problem with responding to the address. However, it's possible that it's some weird variation on a smurf attack. I can't think how an attacker could spoof a network address long enough to set up a TCP channel, but I suppose it's possible.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk