Re: AT&T. Layer 6-8 needed.

[jamie <j () arpa com>]

It should be blocked at the complaining customer port.

Not nationwide, and certainly not without announcement.


On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 10:05 PM, Shon Elliott <shon () unwiredbb com> wrote:

> There has been alot of customers on our network who were complaining about
> ACK
> scan reports coming from 207.126.64.181. We had no choice but to block that
> single IP until the attacks let up. It was a decision I made with the
> gentleman
> that owns the colo facility currently hosts 4chan. There was no other way
> around
> it. I'm sure AT&T is probably blocking it for the same reason. 4chan has
> been
> under attack for over 3 weeks, the attacks filling up an entire GigE. If
> you
> want to blame anyone, blame the script kiddies who pull this kind of stunt.
>
> Regards,
> Shon Elliott
> Senior Network Engineer
> unWired Broadband, Inc.
>
>
> jamie wrote:
> > All,
> >
> >   It appears at AT&T (including DSL, and my own home service via u-verse)
> > has unilaterally and without explanation started blocking websites.
> >
> >   I have confirmed this with multiple tests.  (It actually appears that
> > these sites are being blocked at a local-global scale -- that is, each
> > city/hub seems to have blackholes for the sites).
> >
> >   The sites I know of I'll list below (see Reddit for a discussion), but
> > this is clearly and absolutely unacceptable.  Please, comments on the
> nature
> > of the sites are OT.. Let's keep this thread that way.  (Away from being
> OT,
> > that is).
> >
> >   If any T folk are around, and have gotten wind of this (all comments /
> > direct emails will be off record), a reply would be appreciated.
> >
> >   No ears enclosing clue will be reached via normal channels at ~950E on
> a
> > Sunday, but this is clearly a problem needing addressing, resolution,
> action
> > and, who knows - suit?
> >
> >   Thanks in advance all for insight, comments,
> >
> > -jamie