nanog mailing list archives
Re: AT&T. Layer 6-8 needed.
From: Shon Elliott <shon () unwiredbb com>
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2009 23:37:33 -0700
Chris, Have you even read any of the other posts on here. I have been talking about spoofed packets in this thread multiple times. I do know what it is. I would appreciate you not making stupid comments like that. chris rollin wrote:
Apparently not Back to the kids' table ! On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 12:38 AM, William Pitcock <nenolod () systeminplace net <mailto:nenolod () systeminplace net>> wrote: On Sun, 2009-07-26 at 20:05 -0700, Shon Elliott 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. ...have you ever heard of forged packet headers? Just saying. William -- William Pitcock SystemInPlace - Simple Hosting Solutions 1-800-688-5018
Current thread:
- Re: AT&T. Layer 6-8 needed., (continued)
- Re: AT&T. Layer 6-8 needed. Shon Elliott (Jul 26)
- Re: AT&T. Layer 6-8 needed. Seth Mattinen (Jul 26)
- Re: AT&T. Layer 6-8 needed. Shon Elliott (Jul 26)
- Re: AT&T. Layer 6-8 needed. jamie (Jul 26)
- Re: AT&T. Layer 6-8 needed. John Bambenek (Jul 26)
- Re: AT&T. Layer 6-8 needed. jamie (Jul 26)
- Re: AT&T. Layer 6-8 needed. Jon Lewis (Jul 27)
- Re: AT&T. Layer 6-8 needed. goemon (Jul 26)
- Re: AT&T. Layer 6-8 needed. chris rollin (Jul 26)
- Re: AT&T. Layer 6-8 needed. Shon Elliott (Jul 26)
- Re: AT&T. Layer 6-8 needed. chris rollin (Jul 27)
- RE: AT&T. Layer 6-8 needed. Tim Burke (Jul 27)
- Re: AT&T. Layer 6-8 needed. John Bambenek (Jul 26)
- Re: AT&T. Layer 6-8 needed. chris rollin (Jul 26)
- Re: AT&T. Layer 6-8 needed. John Bambenek (Jul 26)
- Re: AT&T. Layer 6-8 needed. Joel Esler (Jul 27)