|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: RBL-type BGP service for known rogue networks?
That is funny C&W has never had problems tracing attacks through there ATM PVCs. Sounds to me like UUnet just doesn't want to. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kai Schlichting" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, July 07, 2000 11:22 AM Subject: RE: RBL-type BGP service for known rogue networks? > > At Friday 04:28 AM 7/7/00, Joe Shaw wrote: > > >UUNet's abuse department used to be the same way, especially during the > >weekend. If you wanted to annoy the piss out of a UUNet dedicated line > >customer, the weekend was the time to do it. I don't know if that's > >changed now. > > Winds are shifting. One of the original spam floods that trigggered the > creation of SpamShield, was from an Alternet dialup, and it took them > a mere 10 minutes to shut that account off. That must have been a different > department at the time: > > Try being on the receiving end of a spoofed/randomized SYN/anything > flood that doesn't exceed, say: 1Mbps and doesn't load UUnet's network > so much. They won't even lift a damn finger and TRY to trace this back, > supposedly because they can't trace it back through their ATM PVCs > (an argument that has been backed up by other people I spoke to). > They will happily charge you for the traffic though. > A network design that doesn't allow tracing back spoofed traffic? > Way to go, UUnet. > > And yes, I remember CenterTrack: http://www.nanog.org/mtg-9910/robert.html , > it just wasn't in production at the time - and I have no idea if it was > ever deployed successfully. > > Now, lets watch Vijay rush to the defense of his, uhm, stock options. > > >
|