North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: Worm Bandwidth [was Re: Santa Fe city government computers knocked out by worm]
Stuart Staniford writes: >I wasn't advocating a solution, just observing the way things would >have to be for worms to be purely a "buy a bigger box" problem (as I >think Sean was suggesting if I didn't misunderstand him). Ah. >It would generally seem that ISPs would provide more downstream >capacity than upstream, since this saves money and normally not all the >downstream customers will use all their bandwidth at the same time. Right; statistical multiplexing. >But a big worm could well break that last assumption. Yes, as could a number of events, but the response to a worm would probably be different from the latest streaming video event, or whatever. >So it would seem that worms are, at a minimum, not a simple or >unproblematic capacity management problem. Well, it would seem reasonable for an ISP to minimize a worm's effect on its non-worm customer traffic, and that might mean increasing capacity in some places, but I don't think the goal would be to move more worm traffic, but rather to reduce impact to other traffic. Presumably such activity would be combined with other anti-worm efforts.
|