nanog mailing list archives
Re: We have a firewall (was Re: Pakistan government orders ISPservice level agreement)
From: "Scott Granados" <scott () wworks net>
Date: Tue, 6 May 2003 17:25:54 -0700
Unless you actually call UUnet and your not a customer, God help you then. Some companies are very very good at dealing with DDOS, Internap being one and UUNET if you are a customer another. Even a post here although maybe not exactly proper will get you responses from people like Chris and so on who can and will be helpful. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Phil Rosenthal" <pr () isprime com> To: "E.B. Dreger" <eddy+public+spam () noc everquick net>; <nanog () merit edu> Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2003 5:02 PM Subject: Re: We have a firewall (was Re: Pakistan government orders ISPservice level agreement)
On 5/6/03 7:51 PM, "E.B. Dreger" <eddy+public+spam () noc everquick net>
wrote:
SD> Date: Tue, 6 May 2003 19:28:48 -0400 (EDT) SD> From: Sean Donelan SD> The Pakistan Telecommunications Company Ltd has aquired a SD> firewall to solve the DDOS situation impacting Internet SD> service in the country. An unnamed security advisor asserted SD> the proper use of a firewall would control the DDOS attacks SD> and prevent hacking. Now the DDoS melts the pipes _and_ the firewall. I'd like to know if said "consultant" ever considered recommending the PTC contact their upstreams for help with backtrace/blocking. Anyone with a modicum of clue (or Google access) should figure out that one...Not every upstream is as clueful as Uunet, and not every noc employee is
as
clueful as Chris and Brian at UUnet. It has been my experience that most upstreams have no concept that they
CAN
backtrace, and generally have no interest in helping you do it. I'm not mudslinging here, so I won't say who my experience is with, but a few transitless/near transitless upstreams I've dealt with were most
unhelpful,
either because they didn't know how to help, or worse, they did know how
to
help and didn't care. And, depending on the nature of the DDoS attack, perhaps it isn't related
to
saturation, but rather to overloading router processors, or something else that can effectively be filtered customer-side? Our policy as of late has just been to make sure we have equipment on our side fast enough to filter at wire speed, and get enough capacity to our upstreams that it is signifigantly unlikely that anyone could generate enough traffic to saturate it (in which case, we would have no choice but
to
ask carriers to filter, and backtrace). --Phil ISPrimeEddy -- Brotsman & Dreger, Inc. - EverQuick Internet Division Bandwidth, consulting, e-commerce, hosting, and network building Phone: +1 (785) 865-5885 Lawrence and [inter]national Phone: +1 (316) 794-8922 Wichita ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 11:23:58 +0000 (GMT) From: A Trap <blacklist () brics com> To: blacklist () brics com Subject: Please ignore this portion of my mail signature. These last few lines are a trap for address-harvesting spambots. Do NOT send mail to <blacklist () brics com>, or you are likely to be blocked.
Current thread:
- Re: Pakistan government orders ISP service level agreement, (continued)
- Re: Pakistan government orders ISP service level agreement Eric Gauthier (May 05)
- Re: Pakistan government orders ISP service level agreement Sean Donelan (May 05)
- Re: Pakistan government orders ISP service level agreement Joe Abley (May 05)
- Re: Pakistan government orders ISP service level agreement Joseph T. Klein (May 05)
- Re: Pakistan government orders ISP service level agreement Vijay Gill (May 05)
- We have a firewall (was Re: Pakistan government orders ISP service level agreement) Sean Donelan (May 06)
- Re: We have a firewall (was Re: Pakistan government orders ISP service level agreement) Christopher L. Morrow (May 06)
- Re: We have a firewall (was Re: Pakistan government orders ISP service level agreement) E.B. Dreger (May 06)
- Re: We have a firewall (was Re: Pakistan government orders ISP service level agreement) Rob Thomas (May 06)
- Re: We have a firewall (was Re: Pakistan government orders ISP service level agreement) Phil Rosenthal (May 06)
- Re: We have a firewall (was Re: Pakistan government orders ISPservice level agreement) Scott Granados (May 06)
- Re: We have a firewall (was Re: Pakistan government orders ISPservice level agreement) John Payne (May 06)
- Re: We have a firewall (was Re: Pakistan government orders ISPservice level agreement) Rob Thomas (May 06)
- Re: We have a firewall (was Re: Pakistan government orders ISPservice level agreement) Scott Granados (May 06)
- Re: We have a firewall (was Re: Pakistan government orders ISPservice level agreement) Christopher L. Morrow (May 06)
- Re: We have a firewall (was Re: Pakistan government orders ISPservice level agreement) Scott Granados (May 06)
- Re: We have a firewall (was Re: Pakistan government orders ISPservice level agreement) Tim Wilde (May 06)
- Re: We have a firewall (was Re: Pakistan government orders ISPservice level agreement) Christopher L. Morrow (May 06)
- Re: We have a firewall (was Re: Pakistan government orders ISPservice level agreement) Scott Granados (May 07)
- Re: We have a firewall (was Re: Pakistan government orders ISPservice level agreement) Leo Bicknell (May 07)
- Re: We have a firewall (was Re: Pakistan government orders ISPservice level agreement) Christopher L. Morrow (May 07)