Re: Level3 routing issues?

["Christopher L. Morrow" <chris () UU NET>]

On Sat, 25 Jan 2003, K. Scott Bethke wrote:

> BIll,
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bill Woodcock" <woody () pch net>
> > I'd agree with it.  Except the herds of losers who still buy exploding
> > crap from Vendor M don't seem to be thinning themselves out quickly
>
> dude, the Exploding Cars are so much easier to drive than the ones from
> Vendor L.  (tic)

unfortunately (being a vendor L user myself) you must admit that these too
have problems :( (at times)

> > enough.  Maybe they're sexually attractive to each other, and reproduce
> > before their stupidity kills them.  That would be unfortunate.  Or maybe
> > it's just that none of this computer stuff actually matters, so exploding
> > crap isn't actually fatal.  Maybe that's it.
>
> I think it sucks that they are exploding on MY highway.
>
> With that in mind is it time yet to talk about solutions to problems like
> this from the network point of view?  Sure its easy to put up access list's
> when needed but I have 100megs available to me on egress and I was trying to
> push 450megs.  Is there anything protocol, vendor specific or otherwise that
> will not allow rogue machines to at will take up 100% of available
> resources?  I know extreme networks has the concept of Max Port utilization
> on thier switches, will this help?  Suggestions?

Keep in mind that these problems aren't from 'well behaved' hosts, and
'well behaved' hosts normally listen to ECN/tcp-window/Red/WRED....
classic DoS attack scenario. :(