nanog mailing list archives
Re: AT&T. Layer 6-8 needed.
From: Andrew D Kirch <trelane () trelane net>
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 02:25:29 -0400
William Pitcock wrote:
On Sun, 2009-07-26 at 23:15 -0700, Shon Elliott wrote:Okay, so how do YOU block the attacks from eating up your bandwidth and filling up your logs without blocking the entire IP?If I was AT&T, I would purchase DDoS filtering equipment and run it at edge where all of my traffic is peering anyway. This discussion is about AT&T, not you. William
While I agree, I certainly believe that due to the nature of some of the content on 4chan, AT&T can make a strong "Good Samaritan" claim under 47USC230. There's always TOR. Andrew D Kirch
Current thread:
- Re: AT&T. Layer 6-8 needed., (continued)
- Re: AT&T. Layer 6-8 needed. goemon (Jul 26)
- Re: AT&T. Layer 6-8 needed. chris rollin (Jul 26)
- Re: AT&T. Layer 6-8 needed. John Bambenek (Jul 26)
- Re: AT&T. Layer 6-8 needed. chris rollin (Jul 26)
- Re: AT&T. Layer 6-8 needed. John Bambenek (Jul 26)
- Re: AT&T. Layer 6-8 needed. Joel Esler (Jul 27)
- Re: AT&T. Layer 6-8 needed. John Bambenek (Jul 26)
- Re: AT&T. Layer 6-8 needed. Shon Elliott (Jul 26)
- Re: AT&T. Layer 6-8 needed. William Pitcock (Jul 26)
- Re: AT&T. Layer 6-8 needed. Shon Elliott (Jul 26)
- Re: AT&T. Layer 6-8 needed. William Pitcock (Jul 26)
- Re: AT&T. Layer 6-8 needed. Andrew D Kirch (Jul 26)
- RE: AT&T. Layer 6-8 needed. Kody Riker (Jul 26)
- Re: AT&T. Layer 6-8 needed. chris rollin (Jul 26)
- Re: AT&T. Layer 6-8 needed. Jon Lewis (Jul 27)
- Re: AT&T. Layer 6-8 needed. John C. A. Bambenek (Jul 27)
- Re: AT&T. Layer 6-8 needed. Patrick W. Gilmore (Jul 27)
- RE: AT&T. Layer 6-8 needed. Hiers, David (Jul 27)
- Re: AT&T. Layer 6-8 needed. Patrick W. Gilmore (Jul 27)
- RE: AT&T. Layer 6-8 needed. Richard Bennett (Jul 27)
- Re: AT&T. Layer 6-8 needed. Seth Mattinen (Jul 27)
- RE: AT&T. Layer 6-8 needed. Richard Bennett (Jul 27)