On 10 March 2014 14:59, Sanjeev Gupta sanj...@dcs1.biz wrote:
On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 5:41 PM, Matsuzaki Yoshinobu m...@iij.ad.jp wrote:
OK, here is an example. The following report is published by the
cert.br, and regarding their analysis, attackers were serving cache
DNS for 4.5 milion
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 3:43 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
Can you give me an example of what would be the scenario here? Assuming I
am the upstream ISP of the hosts I control, willing to subject them to
vast quantities of traffic. Would I announce 1.2.3.0/24 upstream, and
point
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 5:33 AM, Masato Yamanishi myama...@japan-telecom.com
wrote:
Is there anyone who want to continue this proposal?
I read the Transcript, and saw the comment made on the inadvisability of
1.2.3.4/24 being used as a DNS resolver. I am not sure that this concern
is either
On Mar 5, 2014, at 00:09 , Sanjeev Gupta sanj...@dcs1.biz wrote:
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 5:33 AM, Masato Yamanishi myama...@japan-telecom.com
wrote:
Is there anyone who want to continue this proposal?
I read the Transcript, and saw the comment made on the inadvisability of
1.2.3.4/24
Masato,
Can it be explained how this occurred. Did something change between the
two?
I thought it was practice that the AMM essentially confirmed the
proceedings on the Policy SIG - to avoid these kinds of events, especially
at APRICOT meetings where support/non-support may not be able to make
