North American Network Operators Group
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: Provider-based DDoS Protection Services

  • From: Suresh Ramasubramanian
  • Date: Fri Jul 29 03:38:36 2005
  • Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=tQgwB9wyk+uzeA8ZMnovf24p3sxToYqXkibwSskoE+3zg1xzLg+RIbBfWucOqEwqkIHFlBx/Xuyq4gMnxMPVSJZ8gX3K1sNBX7rVdwbJfufo8KhwdfKwEYDCkmzcw1M0SgNEIMpR+jx/gQTR3CumpqO5Mg7QWfMYj0yS799blXE=
On 29/07/05, Petri Helenius <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> Filtering anything else than port 80 and maybe 53 would allow them to
> experience the Internet in safe and controlled manner!
> 

Petri, if someone has to actually ask on nanog about ddos mitigation
tools, he is much better off not having irc bots, or other such kick
me signs^W ddos magnets on his network.

Real world experience facing down ddos attacks, and googling for docs
of other peoples' real world experiences should have come in useful
long before asking for ddos mitigation 101 on nanog, if he really made
a conscious decision to host these.

--srs

-- 
Suresh Ramasubramanian ([email protected])