RE: Filter NTP traffic by packet size?

["Staudinger, Malcolm" <mstaudinger () corp earthlink com>]

Why wouldn't you just block chargen entirely? Is it actually still being used these days for anything legitimate?

Malcolm Staudinger
Information Security Analyst | EIS
EarthLink

E: mstaudinger () corp earthlink com

-----Original Message-----
From: Blake Hudson [mailto:blake () ispn net] 
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2014 8:58 AM
To: nanog () nanog org
Subject: Re: Filter NTP traffic by packet size?

I talked to one of our upstream IP transit providers and was able to negotiate individual policing levels on NTP, DNS, 
SNMP, and Chargen by UDP port within our aggregate policer. As mentioned, the legitimate traffic levels of these 
services are near 0. We gave each service many times the amount to satisfy subscribers, but not enough to overwhelm 
network links during an attack.

--Blake

Chris Laffin wrote the following on 2/23/2014 8:58 AM:
> Ive talked to some major peering exchanges and they refuse to take any action. Possibly if the requests come from 
> many peering participants it will be taken more seriously?
>
> > On Feb 22, 2014, at 19:23, "Peter Phaal" <peter.phaal () gmail com> wrote:
> >
> > Brocade demonstrated how peering exchanges can selectively filter 
> > large NTP reflection flows using the sFlow monitoring and hybrid port 
> > OpenFlow capabilities of their MLXe switches at last week's Network 
> > Field Day event.
> >
> > http://blog.sflow.com/2014/02/nfd7-real-time-sdn-and-nfv-analytics_19
> > 86.html
> >
> > > On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 4:43 PM, Chris Laffin <claffin () peer1 com> wrote:
> > > Has anyone talked about policing ntp everywhere. Normal traffic levels are extremely low but the ddos traffic is 
> > > very high. It would be really cool if peering exchanges could police ntp on their connected members.
> > >
> > > > On Feb 22, 2014, at 8:05, "Paul Ferguson" <fergdawgster () mykolab com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > > > Hash: SHA256
> > > >
> > > > > > On 2/22/2014 7:06 AM, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 22/02/2014 09:07, Cb B wrote:
> > > > > > Summary IETF response:  The problem i described is already solved 
> > > > > > by bcp38, nothing to see here, carry on with UDP
> > > > > udp is here to stay.  Denying this is no more useful than trying 
> > > > > to push the tide back with a teaspoon.
> > > > Yes, udp is here to stay, and I quote Randy Bush on this, "I 
> > > > encourage my competitors to block udp."  :-p
> > > >
> > > > - - ferg
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > - --
> > > > Paul Ferguson
> > > > VP Threat Intelligence, IID
> > > > PGP Public Key ID: 0x54DC85B2
> > > >
> > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> > > > Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (MingW32)
> > > > Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
> > > >
> > > > iF4EAREIAAYFAlMIynoACgkQKJasdVTchbJsqQD/ZVz5vYaIAEv/z2kbU6kEM+KS
> > > > OQx2XcSkU7r02wNDytoBANVkgZQalF40vhQED+6KyKv7xL1VfxQg1W8T4drh+6/M
> > > > =FTxg
> > > > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----