Re: Hey, QWEST clean up your network

[John Brown <jmbrown () chagresventures com>]

Sorry to those that may be on other lists.  

Given general operational nature, I posted to NANOG, so that:
1. money can talk, others will see one view of this provider
2. operationally maybe something will get done
3. policy wise maybe this provider will change its policy
4. Qwest said their people had installed the ACL's properly
   my evidence is to the contrary.

The customer that was impacted is certainly considering
their options.  I suspect they will vote with their checkbook.

PS: Slew == 1 Private email list, 1, Well known public list
            1 Local Public-ish list.

Slew != as large as it may have sounded...

Policies are sometimes in place for good reasons, sometimes
because the makers of said policy are void clue. To assume
they are inplace for good reason is a leap imho.

Some Qwest people I've worked with on this issue are rich
with clue, others (ergo via the nice normal paths) are not.

My thanks to those that have clue, and my suggestion to 
management that they help those without clue.




On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 09:36:37PM -0600, Danny McPherson wrote:
> Not sure how many places you intend to post this or related
> messages, but if you've got a problem vote with your money.
> Whining to NANOG and a slew of other mailing lists and still
> giving money to Qwest seems silly to me...
>
> Likewise, the Qwest folks likely aren't quite as clueless as
> you've attempted to portray them over the last few days, silly
> policies (policies that are clearly in place for a reason) can
> be fixed -- and I assure you, above all else, money talks...
>
> -danny
>
> On Thursday, August 28, 2003, at 09:25 PM, John Brown wrote:
>
> > Seems like QWEST doesn't have any edge ACL's in place to deal
> > with this lovely worm issue.
> >
> > Count           Source Prexix, rounded up to a /16
> >
> > 144             208.46.0.0
> > 199             65.114.0.0
> > 347             208.45.0.0
> > 462             65.118.0.0
> > 486             65.119.0.0
> > 702             208.44.0.0
> > ----
> > 2340                TOTAL Packets out of 2500 for 2 seconds
> >
> > This is ICMP and TCP MS bad traffic for a 2500 packet
> > capture on a DS1 that is directly connected to Qwest.
> > Ergo, Qwest is the transit provider.  Capture period
> > was about 2 seconds.  ICK
> >
> > According to Qwest Tech/Noc people they can't leave
> > filters up for more than 1 day.
> >
> > Given that this worm has lasted more than 1 day, I'd
> > think its reasonable to leave filters up for say more
> > than one day ????
> >
> >
> > The other thing I learned from QWEST IP-NOC was that
> > it seems managment decided *NOT TO* filter packets related
> > to this worm issue at the edge......
> >
> > john brown
> > AS 10480 and others