[116214] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: AT&T. Layer 6-8 needed.
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (John Bambenek)
Mon Jul 27 01:21:48 2009
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 00:19:08 -0500
From: John Bambenek <bambenek@gmail.com>
To: chris rollin <2600hz@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <e34bd1c70907262218p2a2cd7e3ybdea0926fc99fcb1@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: "nanog - n. am. network ops group list" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Someone else posted on twitter, I saw it recently.
To make it even clearer, we'll take your data, sure. Just don't expect
us to jump on it until we verify with something solid.
chris rollin wrote:
> Uh.
>
> You posted on Twitter.
>
> The most trusted name in [?]
>
> On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 12:17 AM, John Bambenek <bambenek@gmail.com
> <mailto:bambenek@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> We'll take data from **Trusted** sources.
>
> I'm just not going to take a public open mailing list post as
> evidence at this point.
>
>
> chris rollin wrote:
>
> Shon wrote:
>
> Seth,
>
>
>
> I said it could be, not that it is. Thanks for pointing
> that out. However,
>
>
> I
>
>
> believe the reason they are being blocked at AT&T is the
> main reason I
>
>
> supplied
>
>
> on my first post. The DDoS attack issue is the main ticket
> here.
>
>
>
> The ACK storms arent coming from the 4chan servers
> It's just like the DNS attack (IN/NS/.). It points to the
> stupidity of AT&T
> uppers
> SANS: Are you or arent you soliciting data? I have some to
> confirm also
>
>
>
> It's not
> because of content, or to piss people off. It's to protect
> their network,
>
>
> as any
>
>
> of you would do when you got DDoSed on your own networks.
>
>
>
> They are going to get some first hand experience in what
> Protecting their
> Network
> involves real soon, now. Blocking 4chan was an exercise in
> Stupidity
>
>
>
> It's damage control,
>
>
>
> It's a damage challenge.
>
>
>
> essentially, until they find out who is involved and block
> them, then
>
>
> they'll
>
>
> likely lift the block.
>
>
>
> They don't have the right to do this. Not in their
> TOS/EULA/User-Agreement.
> Not in any sane legal forum. (I*A*AL)
>
>
>
> This ISN'T the first time this has happened.
>
>
>
> Exactly.
>
> Now you see the problem ?
>
>
>
>
