nanog mailing list archives
Re: GLBX ICMP rate limiting (was RE: Tier-1 without their own backbone?)
From: Alex Rubenstein <alex () nac net>
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2003 09:26:06 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)
NAC is not a global intercontinental super-duper backbone, but we do the same. It takes some education to the customers, but after they understand why, most are receptive. Especially when they get DOS'ed. On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 variable () ednet co uk wrote:
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, jlewis () lewis org wrote:We have a similarly sized connection to MFN/AboveNet, which I won't recommend at this time due to some very questionable null routing they're doing (propogating routes to destinations, then bitbucketing traffic sent to them) which is causing complaints from some of our customers and forcing us to make routing adjustments as the customers notice MFN/AboveNet has broken our connectivity to these destinations.We've noticed that one of our upstreams (Global Crossing) has introduced ICMP rate limiting 4/5 days ago. This means that any traceroutes/pings through them look awful (up to 60% apparent packet loss). After contacting their NOC, they said that the directive to install the ICMP rate limiting was from the Homeland Security folks and that they would not remove them or change the rate at which they limit in the foreseeable future. What are other transit providers doing about this or is it just GLBX? Cheers, Rich
Current thread:
- Re: Tier-1 without their own backbone?, (continued)
- Re: Tier-1 without their own backbone? Larry Rosenman (Aug 27)
- Re: Tier-1 without their own backbone? Will Yardley (Aug 27)
- RE: Tier-1 without their own backbone? jlewis (Aug 27)
- GLBX ICMP rate limiting (was RE: Tier-1 without their own backbone?) variable (Aug 28)
- Re: GLBX ICMP rate limiting (was RE: Tier-1 without their own backbone?) Jared Mauch (Aug 28)
- Re: GLBX ICMP rate limiting (was RE: Tier-1 without their own backbone?) Wayne E. Bouchard (Aug 28)
- Re: GLBX ICMP rate limiting (was RE: Tier-1 without their own backbone?) Christopher L. Morrow (Aug 28)
- Re: GLBX ICMP rate limiting (was RE: Tier-1 without their own backbone?) Jared Mauch (Aug 28)
- Re: GLBX ICMP rate limiting (was RE: Tier-1 without their own backbone?) Robert Boyle (Aug 28)
- Re: GLBX ICMP rate limiting (was RE: Tier-1 without their own backbone?) Paul Vixie (Aug 28)
- Re: GLBX ICMP rate limiting (was RE: Tier-1 without their own backbone?) Alex Rubenstein (Aug 28)
- Message not available
- Re: GLBX ICMP rate limiting (was RE: Tier-1 without their own backbone?) Robert Boyle (Aug 28)
- Re: GLBX ICMP rate limiting (was RE: Tier-1 without their own backbone?) Steve Carter (Aug 28)
- ICMP traffic increasing on most backbones Re: GLBX ICMP rate limiting Sean Donelan (Aug 28)
- Re: ICMP traffic increasing on most backbones Re: GLBX ICMP rate limiting Steve Carter (Aug 28)
- Re: ICMP traffic increasing on most backbones Re: GLBX ICMP rate limiting Rachael Treu (Aug 28)
- Re: ICMP traffic increasing on most backbones Re: GLBX ICMP rate limiting Dan Hollis (Aug 28)
- Dealing with infected users (Re: ICMP traffic increasing on most backbones Re: GLBX ICMP rate limiting Mike Tancsa (Aug 28)
- Re: Dealing with infected users (Re: ICMP traffic increasing on most backbones Re: GLBX ICMP rate limiting Dan Hollis (Aug 28)
- Re: Dealing with infected users (Re: ICMP traffic increasing on most backbones Re: GLBX ICMP rate limiting Mike Tancsa (Aug 28)
- Re: Dealing with infected users (Re: ICMP traffic increasing on most backbones Re: GLBX ICMP rate limiting Vadim Antonov (Aug 28)