Re: attacking DDOS using BGP communities?

2002-10-18 Thread Saku Ytti
On (2002-10-18 00:15 -0400), John Fraizer wrote: 2) 'TTL' community. -just think about the amount of route-maps : Whoa. Decrementing a single community integer value while leaving others unchanged would seem to be a bit tricky. This would require much more work on the part of

Re: attacking DDOS using BGP communities?

2002-10-18 Thread Saku Ytti
On (2002-10-18 04:13 -0400), John Fraizer wrote: You receive a prefix with the communities :1 :2 :3 and TTL-COMM:2. You need to decrement the TTL-COMM value while leaving the other 3 communities unchanged. Yes this would need change in IOS/JunOS but it wouldn't actually be hard

www.lucent.com

2002-10-18 Thread Daniel Marquez-Klaka
Hello, does someone know what happened to http://www.lucent.com ? Yesterday everything was fine, but now it seams like they are wiped out of the internet. No DNS resolution (unknown host ?!). Daniel

Re: www.lucent.com

2002-10-18 Thread Allan Liska
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: MD5 Hello Daniel, Friday, October 18, 2002, 5:56:27 AM, you wrote: DMK does someone know what happened to http://www.lucent.com ? DMK Yesterday everything was fine, but now it seams like they DMK are wiped out of the internet. No DNS resolution (unknown

The Cidr Report

2002-10-18 Thread cidr-report
This report has been generated at Fri Oct 18 21:45:11 2002 AEST. The report analyses the BGP Routing Table of an AS4637 (Reach) router and generates a report on aggregation potential within the table. Check http://www.cidr-report.org/as4637 for a current version of this report. Recent Table

RE: www.lucent.com

2002-10-18 Thread Daniel Marquez-Klaka
Yes, they are back. Strange, even through looking glasses all over the world they were not reachable for at least an hour ?! D. On Fri, 18 Oct 2002, Gibson, Mark wrote: i can see them -Original Message- From: Daniel Marquez-Klaka [mailto:dmk;marquez.de] Sent: 18 October 2002 10:56

RE: attacking DDOS using BGP communities?

2002-10-18 Thread Frank Scalzo
701 has a blackhole community, 701:, basically it sets the next-hop to something blackholed on their edge so the DOS attack gets dropped as soon as it hits them. I have made use of this to kill at least one DDOS event. A global blackhole community may be difficult to achieve, but getting the

RE: attacking DDOS using BGP communities?

2002-10-18 Thread Jason Lixfeld
Interesting -- I was actually having a conversation about this very same thing with a friend of mine a few days ago. The problem we had, was that he had next-hop-self on all of his ibgp mesh routers. Does that not make it difficult to put an ip next-hop in? Also, would that ip next-hop be

RE: attacking DDOS using BGP communities?

2002-10-18 Thread alex
701 has a blackhole community, 701:, basically it sets the next-hop to something blackholed on their edge so the DOS attack gets dropped as soon as it hits them. I have made use of this to kill at least one DDOS event. A global blackhole community may be difficult to achieve, but

RE: attacking DDOS using BGP communities?

2002-10-18 Thread alex
Interesting -- I was actually having a conversation about this very same thing with a friend of mine a few days ago. The problem we had, was that he had next-hop-self on all of his ibgp mesh routers. Does that not make it difficult to put an ip next-hop in? Also, would that ip next-hop

RE: attacking DDOS using BGP communities?

2002-10-18 Thread Christopher L. Morrow
Inline comments below... --Chris ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) ### ## UUNET Technologies, Inc. ## ## Manager ## ## Customer Router Security Engineering Team ## ## (W)703-886-3823

RE: www.lucent.com

2002-10-18 Thread E.B. Dreger
DM Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 14:23:09 +0200 (CEST) DM From: Daniel Marquez-Klaka DM Strange, even through looking glasses all over the world DM they were not reachable for at least an hour ?! If the routes are announced correctly and there are no routing disasters, then it's probably

Re: sprint passes uu?

2002-10-18 Thread Paul Vixie
i wrote: transit prices have been in free fall, and worldcom has not been following them downward. however, after the cleansing ritual of chapter 11, i think they will be in a fine position to reset their per-megabit charges in ways that make them a compelling transit provider. their

Re: sprint passes uu?

2002-10-18 Thread alex
note that $170/Mbit is actually below cost for any network smaller than sprint's or uunet's, once you figure in the people, the routes, the rent, and the depreciation, and then fuzz it based on economies of scale. however, the market hasn't bottomed yet, and most people still don't know

Cisco Catalyst DOS Risk

2002-10-18 Thread Andy Ellifson
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/55/27690.html

Re: Sprint VS. Qwest

2002-10-18 Thread dgold
What possible reason would the average small transit buyer have for knowing the details of a carrier's peering arrangements - especially carriers like Sprint and Qwest? Both Sprint and Qwest are, most would agree, transit-free, tier 1 networks. They interconnect with all other similarly large

Re: future transit prices

2002-10-18 Thread Paul Vixie
someone wrote, in response to my piece this morning... Can you explain more about why you think transit prices will return to the $200-$300/mbps. I've been quoted $40/mbps on a 50mbps commit (95th%) ... which I think is pretty much as low as it's going to get. I can understand prices going

Re: future transit prices

2002-10-18 Thread joe mcguckin
How do you compute CGS on a network that is 25% utilized? Is it expenses/current utilization or expenses/maximum capacity? I think a lot of the low-ball pricing that is in the market is the result of networks selling off underutilized capacity at discounted pricing just to get some additional

Re: future transit prices

2002-10-18 Thread Paul Vixie
How do you compute CGS on a network that is 25% utilized? bad Is it expenses/current utilization or expenses/maximum capacity? i want to be in a situation where i owe income taxes. so it's all about costs vs. sales. I think a lot of the low-ball pricing that is in the market is the

Re: Sprint VS. Qwest

2002-10-18 Thread Leo Bicknell
In a message written on Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 04:56:13PM -0500, Mark Borchers wrote: OK, given the choice between tier 1 A and tier 1 B, suppose you can show that interconnect bandwidth between the two is underprovisioned. Armed with that knowledge, which of the two do you choose as your

Juniper and Foundry l2/l3 core plus mpls

2002-10-18 Thread jack ardent
Greetings Nanog, My company is currently evaluating both Foundry (netiron line) and Juniper (m160 and t320) devices to use in a high speed l2/l3 core with l2 mpls. Core speeds will start at oc48 (ospf and fully meshed ibgp core, full internet routes, peering, customer routes, etc) but needs to

Re: Juniper and Foundry l2/l3 core plus mpls

2002-10-18 Thread Richard A Steenbergen
On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 04:17:46PM -0700, jack ardent wrote: My company is currently evaluating both Foundry (netiron line) and Juniper (m160 and t320) devices to use in a high speed l2/l3 core with l2 mpls. o/~ One of these things is not like the others, One of these things just

Re: Sprint VS. Qwest

2002-10-18 Thread Richard A Steenbergen
On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 12:18:47PM -0500, dgold wrote: Both Sprint and Qwest are, most would agree, transit-free, tier 1 networks. They interconnect with all other similarly large networks. How much more do you want? The size of their interconnections to 701? I'm not sure how that is