nanog mailing list archives
Re: Global Blackhole Service
From: Paul Vixie <vixie () isc org>
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 17:35:38 +0000
blackholing victims is an interesting economics proposition. you're saying the attacker must always win but that they must not be allowed to affect the infrastructure. and you're saying victims will request this, since they know they can't withstand the attack and don't want to be held responsible for damage to the infrastructure. where you lose me is where "the attacker must always win".
Current thread:
- Re: Global Blackhole Service, (continued)
- Re: Global Blackhole Service Florian Weimer (Feb 13)
- Re: Global Blackhole Service Randy Bush (Feb 13)
- Re: Global Blackhole Service Florian Weimer (Feb 13)
- Re: Global Blackhole Service Tico (Feb 13)
- RE: Global Blackhole Service Barry Raveendran Greene (Feb 13)
- Re: Global Blackhole Service John Kristoff (Feb 14)
- Re: Global Blackhole Service Justin Shore (Feb 16)
- Re: Global Blackhole Service Nuno Vieira - nfsi telecom (Feb 13)
- Re: Global Blackhole Service Suresh Ramasubramanian (Feb 13)
- Re: Global Blackhole Service Paul Vixie (Feb 13)
- Re: Global Blackhole Service Jack Bates (Feb 13)
- Re: Global Blackhole Service Paul Vixie (Feb 13)
- Re: Global Blackhole Service Chris Jester (Feb 13)
- Re: Global Blackhole Service Jack Bates (Feb 13)
- Re: Global Blackhole Service Jens Ott - PlusServer AG (Feb 13)
- Re: Global Blackhole Service Paul Vixie (Feb 14)
- Re: Global Blackhole Service Jens Ott - PlusServer AG (Feb 15)
- Re: Global Blackhole Service Randy Bush (Feb 15)
- Re: Global Blackhole Service Christopher Morrow (Feb 13)
- RE: Global Blackhole Service Jake Mertel (Feb 13)
- Re: Global Blackhole Service Paul Vixie (Feb 14)
- RE: Global Blackhole Service Barry Raveendran Greene (Feb 13)