|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: We have a firewall (was Re: Pakistan government orders ISPservice level agreement)
And I think teh bottom line from all this is to use some of the numbers You provided which will help us get better results. I certainly wrote them down:). ----- Original Message ----- From: "Christopher L. Morrow" <[email protected]> To: "Tim Wilde" <[email protected]> Cc: "John Payne" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2003 10:37 PM Subject: Re: We have a firewall (was Re: Pakistan government orders ISPservice level agreement) > > > On Wed, 7 May 2003, Tim Wilde wrote: > > > > I've had the exact opposite experience when calling UUnet. I was told in > > your upstream, InterNap I believe, called on your behalf, I believe I > also spoke directly with you or someone from dyndns... in the particular > case I am thinking of, about 2 weeks ago perhaps, we did trace the flood 3 > times the same day. This information was provided to your upstream > provider. > > Calling the NOC, as I said before (which you most likely actually called > the customer service number which isn't the NOC), is not productive > because no one in the NOC (or customer service group) has anyway to > authenticate that Tim is Tim from dyndns and not Tim from Savvis... or Tim > from UltraDns now trying to social engineer some 'outage' for their good > friends at DynDns :( (of course the names used are fictional and the > companies are used as a convenience for the example, nothing more) > > > no uncertain terms that they WOULD NOT let me speak with ANYONE if I was > > not a customer, despite 10s of megabits of DDoS coming through their > > network to mine. Maybe you called the right people, but UUnet's main NOC > > Yes, your upstream, as I recall, Internap did call and we did help them to > the best of our ability, given the attack I recall... I can't remember the > specifics and for that I apologize... :( > > > line certainly had no interest in helping us. And when our upstream who > > is a UUnet customer called them, they refused to even perform a backtrace > > without a subpoena in hand for the results of that backtrace. > > > > as I said, for the attack I recall this was not the case. If the attack > was perhaps all UDP and not spoofed we don't bother tracing since its not > spoofed... perhaps that was the case? >
|