nanog mailing list archives
RE: netscan.org update
From: "Roeland M.J. Meyer" <rmeyer () MHSC com>
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2000 09:49:17 -0700
From: John Fraizer [mailto:nanog () EnterZone Net] Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2000 9:43 AM On Tue, 26 Sep 2000, Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:Defense is a lot less socially antagonistic than offensively BGP black-holing antire IP-blocks (which can get you seriously sued) and creating more outages than we already have to suffer through.Roeland, The last time I checked, AS65535 (picked for obvious reasons) does not have a transit contract in place with my company and as such, has absolutely NO grounds to sue me if we choose to blackhole routes to them at our borders. No transit contract -- no guaranteed transit. It's just that simple.
The operative would that I used was "can" and not "will". However, you don't discount my statement about blackholing creating artificial outages. I am proposing a more surgical response to the smurf threat. One that in no way creates outages and may be more socially acceptable. You also missed the point that a IP-block can pass the netscan.org test and STILL be a smurf amp via it's subnets. The subnet bcast addrs aren't hard to find.
Current thread:
- Re: netscan.org update, (continued)
- Re: netscan.org update Roland Dobbins (Sep 25)
- CEF RPF check w/ACLs (was: Re: netscan.org update) Tony Tauber (Sep 25)
- Re: CEF RPF check w/ACLs (was: Re: netscan.org update) James A. T. Rice (Sep 28)
- Message not available
- Re: CEF RPF check w/ACLs (was: Re: netscan.org update) Patrick W. Gilmore (Sep 28)
- Re: CEF RPF check w/ACLs (was: Re: netscan.org update) James A. T. Rice (Sep 28)
- Re: netscan.org update Roland Dobbins (Sep 25)
- RE: netscan.org update John Fraizer (Sep 26)
- Re: netscan.org update Troy Davis (Sep 26)
- RE: netscan.org update John Fraizer (Sep 26)