North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
RE: netscan.org update
> From: John Fraizer [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2000 9:43 AM > > On Tue, 26 Sep 2000, Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote: > > > Defense is a lot less socially antagonistic than offensively BGP > > black-holing antire IP-blocks (which can get you seriously sued) and > > creating more outages than we already have to suffer through. > > Roeland, > > The last time I checked, AS65535 (picked for obvious reasons) does not > have a transit contract in place with my company and as such, has > absolutely NO grounds to sue me if we choose to blackhole > routes to them > at our borders. > > No transit contract -- no guaranteed transit. It's just that simple. The operative would that I used was "can" and not "will". However, you don't discount my statement about blackholing creating artificial outages. I am proposing a more surgical response to the smurf threat. One that in no way creates outages and may be more socially acceptable. You also missed the point that a IP-block can pass the netscan.org test and STILL be a smurf amp via it's subnets. The subnet bcast addrs aren't hard to find.