RE: peering requirements (Re: DDOS anecdotes)

["Przemyslaw Karwasiecki" <karwas () ifxcorp com>]

But please don't forget that in this particular DDoS event
there was no IP spoofing.

So anti-spoofing precautions, either on administrative or technical
level, would be useless in this case.

And this case is not so untypical.

my .002$

Przemek

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-nanog () merit edu [mailto:owner-nanog () merit edu]On Behalf Of
Paul Vixie
Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2001 1:44 PM
To: nanog () merit edu
Subject: Re: peering requirements (Re: DDOS anecdotes)



Following up on my own post:

vixie () mfnx net (Paul Vixie) writes:

> Recommendation: upgrade your peering requirements to include language
like:
> ...

Several folks here talked about technical implementation aspects (RPF, etc)
and a few told me privately that peering was a sales/marketing activity at
this stage of the game.

This either means that upgrading the general level of peering agreement is
not possible, or that the people I should be discussing it with don't read
NANOG.

This echos what I learnt at Stephen's BOF in Phoenix.