If the DDoS exceeds capacity, I simply resort to the RTBH. Until then, if I can
handle it more delicately, then great. If I can handle it by adjusting routing
policy (shy of blackholing) or by dropping traffic selectively until then, I
deliver a better experience.
Eyeball networks can handle DDoSes a bit differently than content guys because
most of our traffic is on just a handful of ASNs on a few ports.
-----Mike HammettIntelligent Computing SolutionsMidwest Internet ExchangeThe
Brothers WISP
----- Original Message -----
From: Ryan Hamel <ryan.ha...@quadranet.com>
To: Mike Hammett <na...@ics-il.net>, Lotia, Pratik M <pratik.lo...@charter.com>
Cc: 'nanog list' <nanog@nanog.org>
Sent: Tue, 06 Nov 2018 13:52:38 -0600 (CST)
Subject: RE: Switch with high ACL capacity
Mike,
Are you sure you have enough inbound capacity to setup such a thing? Do you
have RTBH setup for the final means of killing the attack?
If you could get another set of circuits to feed this switch from your same
providers, and they accept more specific announcements, you could use this to
swing /32's or /128's to said dedicated links so it won't affect your clients
traffic.
--
Ryan Hamel
Network Administrator
ryan.ha...@quadranet.com | +1 (888) 578-2372
QuadraNet Enterprises, LLC. | Dedicated Servers, Colocation, Cloud
-----Original Message-----
From: NANOG <nanog-bounces+ryan.hamel=quadranet....@nanog.org> On Behalf Of
Mike Hammett
Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2018 11:47 AM
To: Lotia, Pratik M <pratik.lo...@charter.com>
Cc: 'nanog list' <nanog@nanog.org>
Subject: Re: Switch with high ACL capacity
The intent is to see if I can construct a poor man's DDOS scrubber. There are
low cost systems out there for the detection, but they just trigger something
else to do the work. Obviously there is black hole routing, but I'm looking for
something with a bit more finesse.
If I need to get a switch anyway, might as well try to take advantage of it for
other uses.
-----Mike HammettIntelligent Computing SolutionsMidwest Internet ExchangeThe
Brothers WISP
----- Original Message -----
From: Lotia, Pratik M <pratik.lo...@charter.com>
To: Mike Hammett <na...@ics-il.net>, 'nanog list' <nanog@nanog.org>
Sent: Tue, 06 Nov 2018 12:29:15 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Re: Switch with high ACL capacity
Mike,
Can you shed some light on the use case? Looks like you are confusing ACLs and
BGP Flowspec. ACLs and Flowspec rules are similar in some ways but they have a
different use case. ACLs cannot be configured using Flowspec announcements.
Flowspec can be loosely explained as 'Routing based on L4 rules' (there's a lot
more to it than just L4). I doubt if a there is a Switch which can hold a large
number of Flowspec entries.
~Pratik Lotia
“Improvement begins with I.”
On 11/6/18, 10:39, "NANOG on behalf of Mike Hammett" <nanog-boun...@nanog.org
on behalf of na...@ics-il.net> wrote:
I am looking for recommendations as to a 10G or 40G switch that has the
ability to hold a large number of entries in ACLs.
Preferred if I can get them there via the BGP flow spec, but some sort of
API or even just brute force on the console would be good enough.
Used or even end of life is fine.
-----Mike HammettIntelligent Computing SolutionsMidwest Internet
ExchangeThe Brothers WISP
E-MAIL CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:
The contents of this e-mail message and any attachments are intended solely for
the addressee(s) and may contain confidential and/or legally privileged
information. If you are not the intended recipient of this message or if this
message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender
by reply e-mail and then delete this message and any attachments. If you are
not the intended recipient, you are notified that any use, dissemination,
distribution, copying, or storage of this message or any attachment is strictly
prohibited.
