Re: AT&T. Layer 6-8 needed.

[jamie <j () arpa com>]

'Wireless backbone'?

K.

I have a dozen confirmations off list in every time zone.  SANS ISC is
soliciting technical reports on this; It's on the EFF's Radar.

"This is not a drill"

If any ISP of mine filtered my (where my = brick-and-mortar-corp) access to
any destination because of another customer (there are *always* technical
solutions to problems you describe, the one you implemented wouldn't even
make my list), you'd have one less customer and quite likely a Tortious
Interference claim..

And, as a (wired) backbone arch, if I ever filtered a host (btw: there are
five IPs in that /24 being filtered by T) that cut off every customer's
access to that host or group, I'd expect to not have a job anymore.

If I wanted filtered Internet, I'd sign up for Prodigy.

Check http://status.4chan.org - they're not moving anything at the moment,
and confirm the filtering.

Debate away, I'm off to bed.

I think 4chan's reaction to this will be bigger than the story itself - No
need for me to argue what will soon be in the News Cycle.

-j




On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 10:20 PM, Shon Elliott <shon () unwiredbb com> wrote:

> Jamie,
>
> Unfortunately, that's not easy with wireless backbones. The customers don't
> have
> their own "port". I also know for fact that 4chan is in the process of
> moving,
> so what you're seeing could just be that. Them moving.
>
>
> Regards,
> Shon Elliott
> Senior Network Engineer
> unWired Broadband, Inc.
>
>
> jamie wrote:
> > It should be blocked at the complaining customer port.
> >
> > Not nationwide, and certainly not without announcement.
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 10:05 PM, Shon Elliott <shon () unwiredbb com
> > <mailto:shon () unwiredbb com>> wrote:
> >
> >     There has been alot of customers on our network who were complaining
> >     about ACK
> >     scan reports coming from 207.126.64.181. We had no choice but to
> >     block that
> >     single IP until the attacks let up. It was a decision I made with
> >     the gentleman
> >     that owns the colo facility currently hosts 4chan. There was no
> >     other way around
> >     it. I'm sure AT&T is probably blocking it for the same reason. 4chan
> >     has been
> >     under attack for over 3 weeks, the attacks filling up an entire
> >     GigE. If you
> >     want to blame anyone, blame the script kiddies who pull this kind of
> >     stunt.
> >
> >     Regards,
> >     Shon Elliott
> >     Senior Network Engineer
> >     unWired Broadband, Inc.
> >
> >
> >     jamie wrote:
> >     > All,
> >     >
> >     >   It appears at AT&T (including DSL, and my own home service via
> >     u-verse)
> >     > has unilaterally and without explanation started blocking websites.
> >     >
> >     >   I have confirmed this with multiple tests.  (It actually appears
> >     that
> >     > these sites are being blocked at a local-global scale -- that is,
> each
> >     > city/hub seems to have blackholes for the sites).
> >     >
> >     >   The sites I know of I'll list below (see Reddit for a
> >     discussion), but
> >     > this is clearly and absolutely unacceptable.  Please, comments on
> >     the nature
> >     > of the sites are OT.. Let's keep this thread that way.  (Away from
> >     being OT,
> >     > that is).
> >     >
> >     >   If any T folk are around, and have gotten wind of this (all
> >     comments /
> >     > direct emails will be off record), a reply would be appreciated.
> >     >
> >     >   No ears enclosing clue will be reached via normal channels at
> >     ~950E on a
> >     > Sunday, but this is clearly a problem needing addressing,
> >     resolution, action
> >     > and, who knows - suit?
> >     >
> >     >   Thanks in advance all for insight, comments,
> >     >
> >     > -jamie
> >     >