We've seen a lot! of this, thousands of matches per hour when we put in an
acl. We were under Ddos some time ago and all the requests were on port
137. A simple filter on netbios-ns on my upstream fixed it but its uggly.
- Original Message -
From: Joe [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL
Hi,
It seems that there is 2 breaks on TAT 14, one between Manasquan (US)
and Blaabjerg (DK) and one somewhere between Blaabjerg and Pentewan,
rumors say somewhere in Holland.
The first seems to be some days old, the second failed around 12:20 CET
yesterday.
Rumors also say one of failures
egal requirements to the bottom line. If a site is paying you for
transit,
there's a very strong *dis*incentive to take any action that would
prevent a
DDoS attack - the bottom line says the Right Thing is to install just
enough
traffic shaping so a DDoS won't melt *your* net, and bill for
Sean,
At Home's policy was that servers were administratively forbidden. It
ran proactive port scans to detect them (which of course were subject to
firewall ACLs) and actioned them under a complex and changing rule set.
It frequently left enforcement to the local partner depending on
it looks that there's unreachable IPv6 prefix advertised at the venue.
please stop this router advertisement (2001:468:1420:f::/64),
or fix conectivity... with this configuration i can't use IPv6 to
connect to my home.
itojun
itojun[coconut:~] traceroute6 -n
http://www.kame.net/nanog26/
itojun
On Sun, Oct 27, 2002 at 02:35:23PM -0500, Eric M. Carroll wrote:
Sean,
At Home's policy was that servers were administratively forbidden. It
ran proactive port scans to detect them (which of course were subject to
firewall ACLs) and actioned them under a complex and changing rule set.
It
Not really
On Sun, 27 Oct 2002, Matthew S. Hallacy wrote:
On Sun, Oct 27, 2002 at 02:35:23PM -0500, Eric M. Carroll wrote:
Sean,
At Home's policy was that servers were administratively forbidden. It
ran proactive port scans to detect them (which of course were subject to
actually with the merger of Att and comcast most cable inet customers
will be through them.
Joseph Barnhart wrote:
Not really
On Sun, 27 Oct 2002, Matthew S. Hallacy wrote:
On Sun, Oct 27, 2002 at 02:35:23PM -0500, Eric M. Carroll wrote:
Sean,
At Home's policy was that servers were
On Sun, Oct 27, 2002 at 07:42:10PM -0600, Matthew S. Hallacy wrote:
And they block port 80 inbound TCP further out in their network. Overall,
cable providers more heavily than cable providers.
^-- s/cable/DSL/;
--
Matthew S. Hallacy
I Second that.
ATT blocks ports (depending where you are) but won't come
right out and say it. On a call to them over a year ago
while testing DSL versus Cable in San Jose, it took almost an hour to get
them to admit that they were blocking ports 137-139, and even then there
was no formal
At 09:03 PM 10/27/2002 -0500, William Warren wrote:
actually with the merger of Att and comcast most cable inet customers
will be through them.
Until that happens however:
In a public press release dated August, they claim to have 1.8 million
Internet customers. How that compares to the
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:owner-nanog;merit.edu] On
Behalf Of Christopher Schulte
Sent: October 27, 2002 9:22 PM
To: William Warren; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: How to secure the Internet in three easy steps
In a public press release dated August,
13 matches
Mail list logo
